From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/usb: new driver for RTL8152 Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20130503.000052.680733925880090504.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20130503023328.GB26712@kroah.com> <4215C45C849149B8A86B57F8D603AAEA@realtek.com.tw> <20130503032315.GA22077@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hayeswang@realtek.com, oliver@neukum.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, nic_swsd@realtek.com To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130503032315.GA22077@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: 'Greg KH' Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 20:23:15 -0700 > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:11:47AM +0800, hayeswang wrote: >> Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org] >> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:33 AM >> > To: Hayeswang >> > Cc: oliver@neukum.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; >> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; nic_swsd >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/usb: new driver for RTL8152 >> > >> > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0800, Hayes Wang wrote: >> > > Add new driver for supporting Realtek RTL8152 Based USB 2.0 >> > Ethernet Adapters >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Hayes Wang >> > > Cc: Realtek linux nic maintainers >> > >> > You removed the wording I had questions about last time, does >> > that mean >> > the previous wording was not correct, or that you no longer are >> > publicising the fact that this driver reads on some patents that you >> > own? >> > >> > You also failed to answer my previous questions, why? >> >> That description is about the patent for the hw design, not for >> software. It indicates that the design of the hw uses those patents >> from the other compnay. I have no idea about how to deal with those >> patents. What should I do for sending a patch? > > That makes sense to me, removing it is correct. It's now up to the > netdev developers to accept this, thanks for the quick response. I think this clears things up and that specific issue is no longer a blocker for inclusion. I'll let this sit on the list so that it may be reviewed on it's technical merits.