From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tomoya MORINAGA" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:47:37 +0900 Message-ID: <001c01cb74f2$d3dd8990$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> References: <4CC645A1.5010509@dsn.okisemi.com><20101026102048.316d0c04@endymion.delvare><001a01cb74ec$e3eb3ea0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> <20101026111322.738b0b14@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Samuel Ortiz , Wolfram Sang , Ralf Baechle , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, LKML , "Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" , Linus Walleij , srinidhi kasagar , Tomoya MORINAGA , "Wang Qi\"" , "Wang Yong Y\"" , kok.howg.ewe@intel.com, joel.clark@intel.com, andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Jean, On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:13 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but > both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone. I agree. I will modify to "i2c-topcliff.c". > There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel > in the patch you posted. Must we get Intel's signature ? We have already got the following. Isn't this enough ? > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij Though I haven't heard like the requirement, if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel. Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)