lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add EXYNOS5433 ARM architectures entry as a supporter
Hi Krzysztof,

On 2017년 01월 06일 02:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> This patch adds the 'ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES' entry
>> in order to review and test the upcoming patches as a supporter.
>> I have developed the low-level devices and power related devices for
>> Exyno5433 and TM2/E board.
>>
>> Moreover, Andi proposed himself as a reviewer for Exynos5433 and TM2/E.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index cfff2c9e3d94..96c055e8dd0b 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,13 @@ F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/samsung-sram.txt
>> F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pd-samsung.txt
>> N: exynos
>>
>> +ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES
>> +M: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>> +R: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com>
>> +L: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
>> +S: Supported
>> +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433*
>> +
>
> Review and testing is always highly appreciated and you are doing,
> Chanwoo, great work. I would like to sincerely thank you for that.
> Samsung probably should thank you, as well. :)
>
> As for the additional sub-entry, I do not see any need for creating
> such entries for specific DTSes. This looks like overkill.
>

I'm in charge of verifying the all features of Exynos5433 and testing
the Exynos5433-based TM/TM2E board in order to guarantee the stabilization
and performance with Platform because TM2/TM2E is Tizen reference board.
So, I just proposed this patch to prevent the missing patch.

But, if you think it is not proper, I respect the opinion of maintainer.

> At the same time I would like to strongly avoid something which is
> happening for example in our DRM where we have *four* maintainers but
> only *one* is responding. We can add bazilions of maintainers to satisfy
> Samsung KPIs but still this might not help reviewing patches (damn, why
> am I waiting with this small [0] thing since 21st of October?).
>
> On the other hand, this is just my personal opinion. If the broad
> open-source community would like to do any changes here
> (add/remove/move/whatever) I do not mind at all.
>
> Best regards and happy New Year! :D
> Krzysztof
>
>
>

--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
null
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-06 04:16    [W:0.036 / U:2.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site