| Message ID | 20220301224446.21236-1-eajames@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] USB: serial: pl2303: Add IBM device IDs | expand |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:52:29AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 08:25, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Eddie James wrote: > > > IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor > > > and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> > > > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > Changes since v1: > > > - Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering. > > > > Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, > > or both. > > It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked > Eddie to send it to mainline for merging. Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you. > Given it's come through me, and now has been sent to you, I think the > chain of s-o-b is appropriate. So the chain of SoB is correct, but the authorship is not. You can use git-format-patch and git-send-email to avoid this kind of problems, but just manually inserting a From line in the body of the mail works too. Johan
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:24:51AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 09:15, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:52:29AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 08:25, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Eddie James wrote: > > > > > IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor > > > > > and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > > - Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering. > > > > > > > > Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, > > > > or both. > > > > > > It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked > > > Eddie to send it to mainline for merging. > > > > Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is > > considered the author and not you. > > You are incorrect. Eddie is the author. Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain. If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a patch from there, then the chain should be: SoB: E SoB: J SoB: E but this is starting to look a bit ridiculous. Johan
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:46:05AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 09:44, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:24:51AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 09:15, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:52:29AM +0000, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 08:25, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Eddie James wrote: > > > > > > > IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor > > > > > > > and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > > > > - Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering. > > > > > > > > > > > > Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, > > > > > > or both. > > > > > > > > > > It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked > > > > > Eddie to send it to mainline for merging. > > > > > > > > Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is > > > > considered the author and not you. > > > > > > You are incorrect. Eddie is the author. > > > > Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the > > sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in > > between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain. > > > > If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a > > patch from there, then the chain should be: > > > > SoB: E > > SoB: J > > SoB: E > > > > but this is starting to look a bit ridiculous. > > I agree. I would appreciate it if you applied the patch, with or > without my sob in whatever order you deem fit. Ok, I'll assume what you intended was E-J-E but that perhaps git-format-patch swallowed the last SoB. Thanks for clarifying. I was going to apply to the patch, but I see now that you didn't provide any details about the product apart from it being a UPS and that's not reflected in the define name. Do you have a pointer to device (family) in question? Johan
diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c b/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c index a70fd86f735c..e2ef761ed39c 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ static const struct usb_device_id id_table[] = { { USB_DEVICE(ADLINK_VENDOR_ID, ADLINK_ND6530GC_PRODUCT_ID) }, { USB_DEVICE(SMART_VENDOR_ID, SMART_PRODUCT_ID) }, { USB_DEVICE(AT_VENDOR_ID, AT_VTKIT3_PRODUCT_ID) }, + { USB_DEVICE(IBM_VENDOR_ID, IBM_PRODUCT_ID) }, { } /* Terminating entry */ }; diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h b/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h index 6097ee8fccb2..c5406452b774 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ #define ATEN_PRODUCT_UC232B 0x2022 #define ATEN_PRODUCT_ID2 0x2118 +#define IBM_VENDOR_ID 0x04b3 +#define IBM_PRODUCT_ID 0x4016 + #define IODATA_VENDOR_ID 0x04bb #define IODATA_PRODUCT_ID 0x0a03 #define IODATA_PRODUCT_ID_RSAQ5 0x0a0e