Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread James Chapman
Sorry for joining this thread late. Patches 1-3 are fine with me. /james Ladislav Michl wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them? Here it is (I'm sorry

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread Ladislav Michl
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per > Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them? Here it is (I'm sorry about that). Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking.

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi Ladislav, > Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking. Looks all OK to me, let alone the lack of Signed-off-by line, as Greg underlined elsewhere. Please resent the patches with the Signed-off-by line after I finish reviewing them. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare - To

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi Ladislav, Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking. Looks all OK to me, let alone the lack of Signed-off-by line, as Greg underlined elsewhere. Please resent the patches with the Signed-off-by line after I finish reviewing them. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare - To

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread Ladislav Michl
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them? Here it is (I'm sorry about that). Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking. Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-08 Thread James Chapman
Sorry for joining this thread late. Patches 1-3 are fine with me. /james Ladislav Michl wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them? Here it is (I'm sorry

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-07 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:17:58AM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type > > of individual change. It's ok to say "patch 3 requires you to have > > applied patches 1 and 2"

[PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-07 Thread Ladislav Michl
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type > of individual change. It's ok to say "patch 3 requires you to have > applied patches 1 and 2" and so on. Please split this up better. Here it is... Use

[PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-07 Thread Ladislav Michl
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type of individual change. It's ok to say patch 3 requires you to have applied patches 1 and 2 and so on. Please split this up better. Here it is... Use i2c_transfer to

Re: [PATCH] ds1337 1/4

2005-04-07 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:17:58AM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type of individual change. It's ok to say patch 3 requires you to have applied patches 1 and 2 and so