On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:03:20PM +0100, S Twiss wrote:
> From: Steve Twiss
>
> Add OnKey driver support for DA9063
>
Isn't this almost to the letter identical to da9062 that I just looked
at? Please find a way to not make a brand new driver for the slightest
variation of the chip...
Thanks.
There's still a license mismatch left (it probably got lost in the noise
when I finally noticed that the header comment mentioned the LGPL in
V1).
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 13:03 +0100, S Twiss wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/da9063-onkey.c
> + * This program is free software; you c
On 17 April 2015 17:16 Dmitry Torokhov wrote
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:03:20PM +0100, S Twiss wrote:
> > From: Steve Twiss
> >
> > Add OnKey driver support for DA9063
> >
>
> Isn't this almost to the letter identical to da9062 that I just looked
> at? Please find a way to not make a brand new
On 18 April 2015 08:55 Paul Bolle wrote:
> There's still a license mismatch left (it probably got lost in the noise
> when I finally noticed that the header comment mentioned the LGPL in
> V1).
>
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 13:03 +0100, S Twiss wrote:
> > + * as published by the Free Software Foundat
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 13:45 +, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote:
> That seems to be a fairly common mistake in the kernel.
It's an easy mistake to make. And as long as people pick an ident that
passes license_is_gpl_compatible() the module will build and load just
fine.
> When I did a
> straw-
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, S Twiss wrote:
> From: Steve Twiss
>
> Add OnKey driver support for DA9063
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Steve Twiss
>
> ---
> Changes from PATCH V1 to V2
> ---
> - Remove the circular dependency comment in the main e-mail body
> linking PATCH V1 1/2 and
