lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] MAINTAINERS: add a maintainer for the SPI NOR subsystem
    From
    Date
    On 10/18/2016 09:15 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:46:51 -0700
    > Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> + others
    >>
    >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
    >>> On 18.10.2016 17:55, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
    >>>> Le 18/10/2016 à 17:30, Richard Weinberger a écrit :
    >>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 10/18/2016 04:58 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
    >>>>>>> I would like to volunteer as a maintainer for the SPI NOR part of the MTD
    >>>>>>> subsystem.
    >>
    >> Awesome!
    >>
    >>>>>>> Over the last months, a significant number of SPI NOR related patches have
    >>>>>>> been submitted, some of them have been reviewed, but very few have finally
    >>>>>>> been merged. Hence, the number of pending SPI NOR related patches continues
    >>>>>>> to increase over the time.
    >>
    >> Agreed, and sorry. But I guess the delays had the side effect of forcing
    >> peoples hands, instead of delaying the inevitable.
    >>
    >>>>>>> Through my work on SPI NOR memories from many manufacturers over the last
    >>>>>>> two years, I've gained a solid understanding of this technology.
    >>>>>>> I've already helped by reviewing patches from other contributors on the
    >>>>>>> mailing list, and would like to help getting those patches integrated by
    >>>>>>> volunteering as a maintainer for this specific area.
    >>
    >> Agreed.
    >>
    >>>>>>> Boris Brezillon has already stepped up as a maintainer for the NAND
    >>>>>>> sub-subsystem in MTD, and the SPI NOR sub-subsystem could be handled in
    >>>>>>> the same way: I would be reviewing patches touching this area, collecting
    >>>>>>> them and sending pull requests to Brian Norris.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'd suggest you send pull requests directly to Linus.
    >>>>> Same for NAND.
    >>
    >> I could go with either method I suppose, but I don't personally like the
    >> idea of splitting out the various bits of MTD into *completely*
    >> independent lines of development. As long as someone (not necessarily
    >> me) can manage pulling the sub-subsystems together, I think it would
    >> make sense to have 1 PR for Linus for non-UBI/FS MTD changes.
    >>
    >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Let me know if you need co-maintainer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> +1
    >>
    >> +1, I think I've not-so-subtly suggested this to Marek previously.
    >
    > Okay, that's all great news!
    > You can add my ack after adding Marek as a co-maintainer.
    >
    >>
    >>>>> While we are here, what about forming a MTD maintainer team?
    >>>>> This concept works very well for other subsystems.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I totally agree with you so if Marek and you volunteer as well, your help
    >>>> will be precious!
    >>>
    >>> Well, my SPI-NOR fu is not strong. And UBI/UBIFS keeps me busy.
    >>> But if Brian likes the idea of having a MTD maintainer team I'll offer my help.
    >>
    >> I think a MTD maintainer team would be good to try, and I think it might
    >> help to resolve my above complaint; a maintainer team could help to make
    >> sure that everything can be coordinated in one tree + pull request,
    >> without adding too many extra points of failure (e.g., so we don't have
    >> awesome SPI NOR and NAND trees get bogged down by a slow MTD pull).
    >>
    >> Random thoughts:
    >>
    >> Does it make sense to still use infradead.org? We'd need to add a few
    >> users there.
    >>
    >> Trust? I have met most of you in person, but not all, and I don't have
    >> signed keys from all of you. I don't know what the best way to get a
    >> group-writeable repo with credentials for all of you that we can trust.
    >> (FWIW, neither Artem nor David met me, but they saw it fit to grant me
    >> infradead.org access ;) )
    >>
    >> Coordination: how do we avoid stepping on each other's toes? We'd have
    >> to definitely 100% kill 'git push -f' and 'git rebase'. Also, would
    >> patchwork help or hurt us here? I think Boris and I have been sort of
    >> using it, but it's still got a pretty good backlog (partly real --
    >> i.e., the cause for this thread; and partly artificial, due to
    >> accounting).
    >
    > I really think we should keep separate trees for the spi-nor and nand
    > sub-subsystems, and then do PRs. The question is, how do we agree that
    > a PR should be pulled in the MTD tree.
    >
    > I guess we could have a simple rule like, if it's been reviewed by at
    > least X person (I guess 2 is acceptable), then we can merge it.
    >
    >>
    >> What to do about mtd-utils.git? That's been languishing a bit, and it
    >> has no release schedule. Maybe we want a plan for that too.
    >
    > Richard and David had some plans for the mtd-utils repo, and I think
    > they already have the permissions to push things to this repo, so the
    > best solution is probably to officially promote them maintainers of
    > mtd-utils.
    I would volunteer to maintain it together with Richard.

    As has been previously mentioned, we did a major overhaul and merged lots
    of fixes locally. AFAIK Richard already has push permissions for the mtd-utils
    tree on infradead.org, so it should be just a matter of making it official?


    David

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-10-18 23:11    [W:4.037 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site