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

[Kyösti Mälkki]

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 <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.
> 

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