From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A208CDDFA0 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:49:01 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LED updates for 2.6.29 From: Richard Purdie To: Trent Piepho In-Reply-To: References: <1231500186.5317.9.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231543199.5317.63.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <1231633983.5330.32.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:49:19 +0000 Message-Id: <1231674559.5304.13.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Linus Torvalds , LKML List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 21:43 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 04:31 -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > The LED tree makes more sense for what's left I think. There was a > > > openfirmware gpio patch, but that's already gone in. What's left only > > > touches led files and the device tree binding docs. > > > > > > AFAIK, there were no objections to the patches left. > > > > Ok, these are now queued in the LED tree: > > > > http://git.o-hand.com/cgit.cgi/linux-rpurdie-leds/log/ > > > > I did merge the last three patches in one and make some changes to deal > > with some other outstanding issues. Let me know ASAP if there are any > > problems. > > Since the last patch looks like it's just my three patches folded into one, > shouldn't I be listed as the author and the primary signed off by? I made changes other than just merging the three together (the syspend/resume change and the bitfield parts in leds.h) so putting you as signed off by/authorship would not have been "correct" and I credited you in the commit message instead. I wanted to get the missing patches queued ASAP so I went with the way that does fit in the rules as you'd not have been happy if a modified patch was attributed to you. I'll put you as author and a signoff if you confirm thats acceptable. Cheers, Richard