[PATCH 2/3] backlight/arcxcnn fix vendor prefix

[Brian Dodge]

This sure did fall through the cracks.

I confirmed with the vendor that there are no existing embedded DTS with 
the wrong name(s) in them before submitting this patch.

The new owner of this chip family, pSemi, just wanted me to wrap things 
up and support all of there chips (3) in a single driver and that was 
the extent of the work for me.  Since then the manager of the program 
there has also changed.  I assume they'd still want these changes in for 
completeness.

AFAIK, there were just some quibbles about the copyright date range.  
Can you please help me push these patches in? It'll take me some time to 
get back in to where I left things  since its been so long.  I know its 
a bit messy but the DTS and driver changes need to be together to make 
sense so I couldn't really do an incremental patch sequence.

What is the next step?

Brian

On 6/24/19 6:24 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:13:25AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> [Sorry to those receiving this twice... had to dig this out from the
>>> archives and sent it to the lists from the wrong mailer]
>>>
>>> On 27/11/2018 00:44, Brian Dodge wrote:
>>>> Thank you Pavel, that is a good point.
>>>>
>>>> The chip vendor has indicated that there is no reason to maintain the
>>>> old/improper prefix and wishes to go forward (only) with the "arctic"
>>>> prefix and any existing dts files are or will be updated.
>>> Looks like this patch series has fallen into the cracks a little.
>>>
>>> I think I assumed this info would end in the description of patch v2 1/3 (in
>>> order to answer Rob's feedback) and I sat and waited for a respin. On the
>>> other hand... I didn't actually say that explicitly anywhere! So... I'd
>>> recommend a respin perhaps with a small bit of text explaining how the
>>> vendor can state that any existing dts files will be updated. This is a
>>> peripheral device so these strings are probably embedded into OEM
>>> devicetrees rather than exclusively under the control of the vendor.
>> So in next email you give good reason not to apply this :-).
> Afraid so... it was on page 2 of my google search so I did a quick
> search, sent the first mail and then went back to my web browser.
>
> It was at that moment that I decided a quick search wasn't enough and
> decided to got a little deeper!
>
>
> Daniel.