Hello Tom,
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:43:55 -0500, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:58:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 11/14/2014 09:55 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hello Hans,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:29 +0100, Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
From: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
For similar reasons to why the Linux Kernel has an EXPERT option, we too want an option to allow for tweaking of some options that while normally should remain hidden, may need to be changed in some cases.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com Acked-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com
As you're just resending Tom's patch, should it have your own Signed-off-by? No need to post v6 if you think this should be corrected, I would do it when applying.
AFAIK it is normal to add a Signed-off-by when a patch passes through ones hands / tree. But I'm fine with having it removed, either way works for me.
I don't have a preference either way. We don't add S-o-B lines as often as the kernel does but I don't want to make people worry about that when switching between kernel and u-boot work either.
Makes sense -- I had not thought about this kernel/u-boot switching.
-- Tom
Amicalement,