On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:59:46AM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/03/2014 06:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:15 +0800, Graeme Gregory wrote: > >>> Add maintainers for the arm-core file for arm64 ACPI support > >> > >> Shouldn't something have to be in the kernel > >> tree before there's a MAINTAINERS entry? > > > > or in linux-next and the patch can be added to linux-next (some git tree). > > Sure, it makes sense to merge this file along with the rest of the > series, but I certainly appreciate that Graeme and Hanjun are willing > to volunteer to do this work. Well, to put it another way, it makes no sense at all to merge this patch independently. > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:15:45AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote: > >> +ACPI ARM64 > > > > That's a pretty broad statement for a single file. Is it core support, > > architected peripherals, SoC? > > That's a good point. Graeme, it would be good if you could put some > text in the patch describing how you propose the maintainership to > work. Unfortunately the maintainers file doesn't have any kind of > comments field, otherwise I'd suggest you make those comments directly > there. > > Given that ACPI can touch a lot of subsystems I would expect you and > Hanjun not to be merging much code directly, but being listed in > maintainers means that you will be kept in the loop when it comes to > merging ARM ACPI changes. I would also expect that anything that does > go through you (instead of merely acked) would be merged via Rafael > and Len's tree. > > > > >> +M: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> +M: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> +S: Supported > >> +L: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> +F: drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c > > > > This patch should be part of the series introducing the arm-core.c file > > and it will be ACKed (or NAKed) following review. We can't really commit > > maintainers to a file which does not exist in mainline and while there is > > still feedback to be addressed. It's like a blank cheque. > > I agree with merging it with the rest of the series, but comparing it > to a blank cheque is not appropriate. Merely having an entry in > MAINTAINERS doesn't immediately confer trust or ability to merge code, > but it does tell people who to talk to when looking at ACPI on ARM. > You can bet that neither Linus, Len or Rafael will merge ARM ACPI > trees from them if you disagree. (And even if they did, you would > yell, and Linus would revert it). If you want to know who to talk to regarding a subsystem then you use get_maintainer.pl and/or git blame. Regardless of this patch, neither of those tools will identify Graeme or Hanjun as the contacts for ACPI on ARM. I think we're in agreement, but just to spell it out: this patch should be included at the end of a series adding the files which will be maintained. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
