On Tuesday 22 July 2014 13:44:31 Brian Norris wrote:
> > For the platform changes in the first patch, I would prefer to have
> > Matt pick up the first patch, but we can also apply it directly into
> > arm-soc if he prefers that.
>
> That brings up a question related to PATCH 11 in the series (MAINTAINERS
> update); who will be maintaining arch/arm/mach-bcm/*brcmstb*, and how
> will code go upstream? It seems like Matt and Christian are officially
> mach-bcm maintainers, although I don't know if Christian is still
> involved.
You have to solve that question together with Matt. From my perspective
it would be easier if I only have to deal with one person for mach-bcm,
but it's really up to you.
> Also, BCM7xxx shares little in common with the rest of mach-bcm, except
> a company name, so we'd really like at least the 'Maintainer' entries
> for the CC. I was planning on a separate git tree too, although it could
> have conflicts if we touch arch/arm/mach-bcm/{Makefile,Kconfig}.
>
> So would we send a separate arm-soc pull request for the arm-soc
> targeted changes (and all future development)?
You can definitely have the separate MAINTAINERS entry without necessarily
becoming a maintainer at the same level. I know Matt is very responsive
and can forward your patches to arm-soc if that works for you.
> For the reset of mach-bcm stuff, I'll just send an arm-soc pull request
> soon enough, unless Matt/Arnd/Olof object.
I'll wait for Matt to comment before pulling it, otherwise that sounds
fine.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
