On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[...]
Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some
sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above.
To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do
that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen.
That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide.
I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping
on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still
multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no
one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely
require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per
patch basis) and b) send you pull requests.
Fine to me.
Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not
Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS
file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes.
expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I
really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down.
Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please
manifest yourselves.
Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly,
let's do that :)
OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version
of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a
maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch
set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version?
[1]:
https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/topic-gtdt-wakeup-timer_upstream_v7_devel
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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
