From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:54:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCHv2] support PMIC mc13892 In-Reply-To: References: <1291708905-23645-1-git-send-email-b00984@freescale.com> <87pqtdncpl.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> Message-ID: <20101207115429.GB4698@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:55:00PM +0800, Yong Shen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Arnaud Patard wrote: > > I'm not sure if it should be a signed-off-by: or acked-by: or reviewed-by: > > tag since I wrote the code you've used a basis. I'm putting my s-o-b but > > if I'm wrong, I do hope someone will correct it. > > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard > It is nice that you mention this issue. I was also wondering for a > while about what should I do about this, I was not sure, so I put > Arnaud in the head comments. Is there any conventions for this? I am > OK with: > Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard > Signed-off-by: Yong Shen A signoff has a very specific meaning which would in this situation mean that Arnaud wrote part of the patch - see SubmittingPatches. Otherwise a Tested-by and/or Reviewed-by seem appropriate (with the obvious meanings). > It seems that I should send out a new patch for this, or can I just > ask maintainer who is responsible for merging this patch to change the > s-o-b? Maintainers will usually take care of this, but if you need to resend please do include tags that still apply.