From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:13:20 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53
In-Reply-To: <20110720134530.GA15471@pengutronix.de>
References: <1310251913-9877-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
	<1311167599-21790-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
	<20110720130830.GD2377@pengutronix.de>
	<20110720132418.GB6999@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
	<20110720132720.GE2377@pengutronix.de>
	<20110720134426.GD6999@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
	<20110720134530.GA15471@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <4E2736E0.40105@boundarydevices.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 7/20/2011 6:45 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:44:27PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>> Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as
>>>>> the author of the patch?
>>>>>
>>>> I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was
>>>> told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by.  So let's see what
>>>> he would say about this one.
>>>
>>> Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one
>>> can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top
>>> of.
>>>
>> So you are telling you are not following the list closely?
> 
> If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not.
> Why?
> 
Shawn,

The reason I requested to change to reported-by on the FEC patch was
because your patch was extremely different from mine and you deserved to
be listed as the author, not me.


For this, both patches are tiny. And since I still think that
CONFIG_ARCH_MX53 is more appropriate than CONFIG_SOC_IMX53,
I am also fine with a reported-by. Though your commit message
could be better. It is a run time problem, not compile-time.

Thanks for your efforts.

Troy