Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add at24 based EEPROMs to the eeprom_dev hardware class

[Curt Brune <curt@cumulusnetworks.com>]

On Thu Jan 23 19:15, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > Well, it is not the Copyrights section, or you are saying the same
> > people should go to MODULE_AUTHOR as in the Copyrights section, even
> > if it is potentially several names? I thought this would be the name
> > of the person who put the file together even if from existing sources.
> 
> You may be right that the two can be viewed differently. Nonetheless,
> adding 10 lines to an existing driver already upstream does not count
> for both.

Apologies for the confusion resulting from a using a lot of context in
my patch.  My small changes does not warrant changing any copyright or
author notices in this file.

> 
> > >> PS.: Fixing the broken i2c mailing list typo, and updating Wolfram's
> > >> address from the broken (obsolete?) version.
> > >
> > > It came through to the i2c list? What was wrong?
> > 
> > Yes, it did, _after_ fixing the typo in the mailing list address.
> > Check the original mailing list address typed for details.
> 
> I did. That's why I asked :) Plus, since I got the original mail, it
> must have come via i2c-list since my pengutronix address was in deed
> wrong.

Again apologies:  Indeed I had the i2c-list mailing address wrong on
my initial submission, which Laszlo fixed up and resent.

I will be submitting a new version of the patch set that:

1. reduces the context lines
2. clarifies a few points in the commit message

Cheers,
Curt