[PATCH V4 1/5] arm/dt: add basic mx51 device tree support
Paul E. McKenney
paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Mar 16 08:45:12 UTC 2011
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 aFt 11:03:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Jason Hui <jason.hui at linaro.org> wrote:
> > Hi, Grant,
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> >> Hi Jason,
> >> Minor comments below.
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:59:41PM +0800, Jason Liu wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <jason.hui at linaro.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <r64343 at freescale.com>
> >> This looks wrong. You should only have one s-o-b line. Use one email
> >> addr or the other. Not both.
> > I just take the same approach as this link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/17/363
> > If you think it's not applicable, I can change it.
> Yeah, I don't think that's right. A s-o-b is a personal assertion
> that the patch is to the best of your knowledge that you have the
> right to submit it for inclusion in the kernel (see section 12 of
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches). It doesn't make any statements
> about who owns the copyright on the patch or other issues of corporate
> ownership. Companies may have policies about which email address
> employees use when signing off, but that isn't what the s-o-b protocol
> is for.
> Since there isn't more than one of you, you should only have one s-o-b
> line. :-)
> Paul, since your email was presented as evidence, would you care to
> offer a counter-argument? :-)
How about https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/22/668? ;-)
There is only one of me, but I am acting in two roles.
More information about the linaro-dev