On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 19:08 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Am 06.04.2013 05:37 schrieb Kyösti Mälkki: > > On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 03:12 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Here is the same patch, with my suggested changes and some other stuff > >> on top (constification, naming the Xilinx DLC-5 cable "dlc5" in > >> anticipation of the buffered DLC-5 variant) to avoid changing things > >> twice. I tried to dig up the history of this patch, hopefully I got it > >> right. > >> > >> Am 01.04.2013 23:55 schrieb Kyösti Mälkki: > >>> Create a list of programmer types with names. This list could be > >>> listed with flashrom -L in follow-up patches. > >>> > >>> Handle a bit in status register that is inverted, this will be used > >>> in different future programmer types. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]> > >>> Tested-by: Maksim Kuleshov <[email protected]> > >>> Acked-by: Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]> > >> rayer_spi: Rework handling of programmer types > >> > >> Store rayer_spi programmer types with configuration data in an array. > >> Bit 7 of the LPT status register is inverted, automatically handle this > >> for future users. > >> The Xilinx DLC-5 cable is now selected with type=dlc-5 instead of > >> dev=xilinx. > >> > >> Patch originally by Maksim Kuleshov, reworked by Kyösti Mälkki and > >> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger. > >> > >> Maksim/Kyösti, can I get your signoff? > >> > > Why did You remove the Signed-off by lines from the patch in the first > > place? I thought there was a policy to only add at the end of > > Signed-off-by lines. And if you only do minimal rebase or rework, note > > that between Your own sign-off. > > Indeed. But your comments in response to the "[flashrom] [PATCH] Support > device lists for programmers without PCI/USB IDs" thread sounded like > you didn't want to be associated with the rework I was doing, and I > wanted to avoid a situation where your signoff is associated with a > patch you don't like. >
I have submitted the patch with my Signed-off-by previously. The fact that I do not like the rework You have done here cannot change the "Chain of Trust" or "Certificate of Origin" the Signed-off-by procedure is about. More importantly: For further changes in this rayer_spi patchset, remove the Tested-By and Acked-By lines. > Do you agree with the patch summary I posted above, or is it incorrect? > I tried to dig up all the mails similar to this patch and hope I got the > "original by/reworked by" comment right. Summary is fine. > > Yes, you can return my Signed-off-by in there. > > Thanks. I'll wait for Maksim's signoff confirmation before committing. Maksim, would you keep track of the effort (in time) You need to put in re-testing the patchsets and commenting on ML. > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > Thanks, Kyösti _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
