[flashrom] [PATCH 1/5] rayer_spi: Improve support for different pinouts

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

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 <kyosti.malkki at gmail.com>
>>> Tested-by: Maksim Kuleshov <mmcx at mail.ru>
>>> Acked-by: Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki at gmail.com>
>> 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.

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.

> Yes, you can return my Signed-off-by in there.

Thanks. I'll wait for Maksim's signoff confirmation before committing.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/