Em Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:44:50 +0100 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu October 25 2012 19:27:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi Hans, > > > > Em Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:35:56 +0200 > > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This is the tentative agenda for the media workshop on November 8, 2012. > > > If you have additional things that you want to discuss, or something is wrong > > > or incomplete in this list, please let me know so I can update the list. > > > > Thank you for taking care of it. > > > > > - Explain current merging process (Mauro) > > > - Open floor for discussions on how to improve it (Mauro) > > > - Write down minimum requirements for new V4L2 (and DVB?) drivers, both for > > > staging and mainline acceptance: which frameworks to use, v4l2-compliance, > > > etc. (Hans Verkuil) > > > - V4L2 ambiguities (Hans Verkuil) > > > - TSMux device (a mux rather than a demux): Alain Volmat > > > - dmabuf status, esp. with regards to being able to test (Mauro/Samsung) > > > - Device tree support (Guennadi, not known yet whether this topic is needed) > > > - Creating/selecting contexts for hardware that supports this (Samsung, only > > > if time is available) > > > > I have an extra theme for discussions there: what should we do with the drivers > > that don't have any MAINTAINERS entry. > > I've added this topic to the list. Thanks! > > It probably makes sense to mark them as "Orphan" (or, at least, have some > > criteria to mark them as such). Perhaps before doing that, we could try > > to see if are there any developer at the community with time and patience > > to handle them. > > > > This could of course be handled as part of the discussions about how to improve > > the merge process, but I suspect that this could generate enough discussions > > to be handled as a separate theme. > > Do we have a 'Maintainer-Light' category? I have a lot of hardware that I can > test. So while I wouldn't like to be marked as 'The Maintainer of driver X' > (since I simply don't have the time for that), I wouldn't mind being marked as > someone who can at least test patches if needed. There are several "maintainance" status there: S: Status, one of the following: Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. Odd Fixes: It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do much other than throw the odd patch in. See below.. Orphan: No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the role as you write your new code]. Obsolete: Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means it has been replaced by a better system and you should be using that. (btw, I just realized that I should be changing the EDAC drivers I maintain to Supported; the media drivers I maintain should be kept as Maintained). I suspect that the "maintainer-light" category for those radio and similar old stuff is likely "Odd Fixes". > > There are some issues by not having a MAINTAINERS entry: > > - patches may not flow into the driver maintainer; > > - patches will likely be applied without tests/reviews or may > > stay for a long time queued; > > - ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl at --no-git-fallback won't return > > any maintainer[1]. > > > > [1] Letting get_maintainer.pl is very time/CPU consuming. Letting it would > > delay a lot the patch review process, if applied for every patch, with > > unreliable and doubtful results. I don't do it, due to the large volume > > of patches, and because the 'other' results aren't typically the driver > > maintainer. > > > > An example of this is the results for a patch I just applied > > (changeset 2866aed103b915ca8ba0ff76d5790caea4e62ced): > > > > $ git show --pretty=email|./scripts/get_maintainer.pl > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:MEDIA INPUT INFRA...,commit_signer:7/7=100%) > > Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:4/7=57%) > > Anatolij Gustschin <agust@xxxxxxx> (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:MEDIA INPUT INFRA...) > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list) > > > > According with this driver's copyrights: > > > > * Copyright 2008-2010 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > * > > * Freescale VIU video driver > > * > > * Authors: Hongjun Chen <hong-jun.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > * Porting to 2.6.35 by DENX Software Engineering, > > * Anatolij Gustschin <agust@xxxxxxx> > > > > The driver author (Hongjun Chen <hong-jun.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) was not even > > shown there, and the co-author got only 15% hit, while I got 100% and Hans > > got 57%. > > > > This happens not only to this driver. In a matter of fact, on most cases where > > no MAINTAINERS entry exist, the driver's author gets a very small hit chance, > > as, on several of those drivers, the author doesn't post anything else but > > the initial patch series. > > We probably need to have an entry for all the media drivers, even if it just > points to the linux-media mailinglist as being the 'collective default maintainer'. Yes, I think that all media drivers should be there. I prefer to tag the ones that nobody sends us a MAINTAINERS entry with "Orphan", as this tag indicates that help is wanted. > > A MAINTAINERS entry should probably be required as well for new drivers. Agreed. Regards, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
