From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Warren Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:04:50 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] mpc83xx: UEC: add support for Broadcom BCM5481 Gigabit PHY In-Reply-To: <20080108105018.4d91dd7f.kim.phillips@freescale.com> References: <20071225170126.GB21275@localhost.localdomain> <20080108105018.4d91dd7f.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Message-ID: <4783BB42.5040404@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Kim Phillips wrote: > On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:01:26 +0300 > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > >> This patch adds basic support for Broadcom BCM5481 PHY, >> with the quirk needed for at least MPC8360E-RDK. >> > > ? the MPC8360E-RDK doesn't exist in the mainline tree. > > >> Quirk comes from MPC8360E-RDK BSP source, I think author is >> Peter Barada , but I'm not sure. >> > > solicit his signoff then? > > >> There are no openly available specifications for that PHY. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov >> > > Also, shouldn't networking patches go through Ben Warren? > Sorry Kim, but I didn't take it because it was in 83xx code. These multi-jurisdictional patches are pretty common, and there doesn't seem to be a well-defined way of handling them. In this case, it's pretty clearly network code, but I'd like to at least have your 'acked-by' in the paper trail. Does this sound like the right way to do it, or am I making things too bureaucratic? regards, Ben