On 16/06/2023 13:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 16/06/2023 12:49, Imran Shaik wrote: >> Update the qcom GCC clock bindings and add v2 compatible string for QDU1000 >> and QRU1000 SoCs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.yaml | 6 +++++- >> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.h | 4 +++- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.yaml >> index 767a9d03aa32..030953d258c1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,qdu1000-gcc.yaml >> @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ title: Qualcomm Global Clock & Reset Controller for QDU1000 and QRU1000 >> >> maintainers: >> - Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> + - Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> + - Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > I appreciate adding more maintainers, it is welcomed and needed. > > However many of Qualcomm folks, including some of you, did not care > enough to fix their old/incorrect email in existing entries, thus we > have hundreds of wrong addresses and email bounces. > > We already raised this internally and publicly, with just small effect, > so I am not sure what to do more. For me, allowing to have outdated > email in maintainers is an easiest proof that maintainer does not care. > Adding more maintainer entries, while maintainer does not care, would > not feel right. Maybe let's start with fixing existing entries? +Cc Alex, Let me emphasize more, because I did not see any follow up patches since my previous email - there are many, many stale maintainer entries from Qualcomm. Several of them have codeaurora.org email. Some have just old emails of folks who left. Can we expect fixing these? Best regards, Krzysztof
