Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer | From | Hanjun Guo <> | Date | Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:44:47 +0800 |
| |
On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [...] > >>> Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some >>> sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. >> >> To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do >> that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. >> That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. > > I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping > on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still > multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no > one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely > require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per > patch basis) and b) send you pull requests.
Fine to me.
> > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not
Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes.
> expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I > really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. > > Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please > manifest yourselves.
Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly, let's do that :)
OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version?
[1]: https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/topic-gtdt-wakeup-timer_upstream_v7_devel
Thanks Hanjun
| |