Hi Jean, Here is my Signed-off-by line: Signed-off-by: Prakash Mortha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I tried to include this in the patch files too, but please modify it as needed. (This time also I am sending the patches as attachment as quilt send is not working for me here - needs to configure mail transfer agent and still trying to set it right). Thanks a lot, Prakash -----Original Message----- From: Jean Delvare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 4:00 PM To: Mortha, Prakash Cc: Linux I2C Subject: Re: Question about vt82c596 SMBus driver (Via I2c Bus driver) Hi Prakash, On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:19:46 -0400, Mortha, Prakash wrote: > Please find attached the patches I have generated using quilt. Hopefully > this should meet the requirements. (Please bear with me if this doesn't > meet the requirements, as this is my first time to generate a official > patch). The patches meet the technical requirements, in that I was able to apply them. However they are missing a proper subject and description, as well as your Signed-off-by line. Again, please see section 12 (Sign your work) of Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what it means. For example, the header of your first patch could be something like: * * * * * From: Prakash Mortha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: i2c: Restore i2c_smbus_process_call function Restore the i2c_smbus_process_call() as one driver (for the Micronas MAP5401) will need it soon. * * * * * And then would come your Signed-off-by line. For your first contribution, I want to make it easy for you and I'll be adding the subject and description myself, but I _need_ your Signed-off-by line before I can push both patches upstream. > Thank you once again for your valuable inputs/comments. I tried > implementing all your suggestions, except for the following: > > 1. I didn't modify the Documentation/i2c/smbus-protocol, as this > document is already talking about the new function that I have worked > on. But it doesn't mention the name of the function implementing the transaction. That's what I wanted you to add. But that's OK, I added it myself. I also updated Documentation/i2c/writing-clients, which was claiming that function i2c_smbus_process_call() had been removed from the kernel. > 2. I had to implicitly have the following lines of code in i2c-viapro.c, > because for process call functionality the bus driver has to be in write > mode initially and then has to switch to Read mode. (With out these > implicit lines of code i2c-viapro bus driver is returning immediately > after write call as per the existing control flow.) > if ( size == VT596_PROC_CALL) > read_write = I2C_SMBUS_READ; > Please provide your suggestion if I could do it in a better way. I was wondering about this. The "process call" is special in that it doesn't have a read variant and a write variant. Instead, it is a transaction combining write and read. So I was wondering if the direction bit had any effect on the VIA chip. According to your tests, it must be handled as a write operation at the device level. So, your implementation is correct. I had to fix a number of whitespace issues in the second patch. Next time, I suggest that you run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patch, it will tell you about that kind of minor problems so that you can fix them before sending the patch. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
series
Description: series
patch1
Description: patch1
patch2
Description: patch2
_______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
