[PATCH] arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Shawn Guo shawn.guo at freescale.com
Wed Jul 20 19:13:55 EDT 2011

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:13:20PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 6:45 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:44:27PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >>>>> Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as
> >>>>> the author of the patch?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was
> >>>> told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by.  So let's see what
> >>>> he would say about this one.
> >>>
> >>> Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one
> >>> can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top
> >>> of.
> >>>
> >> So you are telling you are not following the list closely?
> > 
> > If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not.
> > Why?
> > 
> Shawn,
> The reason I requested to change to reported-by on the FEC patch was
> because your patch was extremely different from mine and you deserved to
> be listed as the author, not me.
> For this, both patches are tiny. And since I still think that
> CONFIG_ARCH_MX53 is more appropriate than CONFIG_SOC_IMX53,
> I am also fine with a reported-by. Though your commit message
> could be better. It is a run time problem, not compile-time.
No.  It is a compile-time problem.  The reason we see difference there
is because I based off linux-next (essentially linux-arm-soc/next <-
Sascha's 'devel' branch), while you probably based off Sascha's
for-next branch.


You forgot to apply the following patch on your for-next branch?

commit fad107086d5a869c1c07e5bb35b7b57a10ecf578
Author: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
Date:   Thu May 19 17:25:05 2011 +0200

    ARM i.MX debug macro: use CONFIG_SOC_* instead of CONFIG_ARCH_*

    CONFIG_ARCH_* are deprecated, so remove one user.

    Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>

I think you still need to keep your for-next branch as a bleeding-edge
for i.mx since people base their i.mx works off there.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list