I can explain part of this, but I'm curious if anyone else has different info. On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > But the rules have never been clear to me. If the subsystem > maintainer is okay with it, I'm happy to take the patches. I'm just > kinda curious why this doesn't go through devicetree tree while some > other devicetree patches go through there. AFAIK, there is no official tree for device tree bindings. There's just a mailing list and several reviewers, who usually try to help on the big picture binding review. Note that there's no tree listed in MAINTAINERS under: OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS But you will see several MAINTAINERS entries for different subdirs of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/. Maybe you should add one for .../ata if you're going to continue taking patches? It's possible you're confusing binding documentation with .dts source files? The DTS files (arch/*/boot/dts/) go through arch trees. For instance, the arm-soc maintainers have a structured process by which sub-architecture maintainers track .dts(i) file updates for their boards/chips and filter them up to Arnd, Olof, etc., via their separate 'dts' branches. That's why Florian took patch 5 to his tree. > Can somebody explain the > overall policy to me? I'm not looking for some absolute rules and > exceptions are fine but I do wanna have a general direction. Brian -- 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
