Hi Martin, On Thursday 08 November 2012 15:18:38 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Friday 02 November 2012 11:13:10 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:12:44 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > > > Em Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:44:50 +0100 Hans Verkuil escreveu: > > > > On Thu October 25 2012 19:27:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > Em Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:35:56 +0200 Hans Verkuil 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. [snip] > > > > > 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 it has been replaced by a better system and you 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. [snip] > > > > 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. > > > > I wrote a small shell script to see what's missing, using the > > > > analyze_build.pl script at media-build devel_scripts dir: > > DIR=$(dirname $0) > > > > $DIR/analyze_build.pl --path drivers/media/ --show_files_per_module > > > > >/tmp/all_drivers grep drivers/media/ MAINTAINERS | perl -ne > > > > 's/F:\s+//;s,drivers/media/,,; print $_ if (!/^\n/)' >maintained grep -v > > -f maintained /tmp/all_drivers |grep -v -e keymaps -e v4l2-core/ > > -e dvb-core/ -e media.ko -e rc-core.ko -e ^#| sort >without_maint > > > > I excluded the core files from the list, as they don't need any specific > > entry. RC keymaps is also a special case, as I don't think any maintainer > > is needed for them. > > > > Basically, analyze_build.pl says that there are 613 drivers under > > drivers/media. The above script shows 348 drivers without an explicit > > maintainer. So, only 43% of the drivers have a formal maintainer. > > > > Yet, on the list below, I think several of them can be easily tagged as > > "Odd fixes", like cx88 and saa7134. > > > > I think I'll send today a few RFC MAINTAINERS patches for some stuff below > > that I can myself be added as "Odd fixes". Yet, I would very much prefer > > if someone with more time than me could be taking over the "Odd fixes" > > patches I'll propose. > > These are 'Maintained' by me: > > i2c/aptina-pll.ko = i2c/aptina-pll.c > i2c/mt9p031.ko = i2c/mt9p031.c > i2c/mt9t001.ko = i2c/mt9t001.c > i2c/mt9v032.ko = i2c/mt9v032.c > > I can maintain the following driver if needed: > > i2c/mt9m032.ko = i2c/mt9m032.c Do you plan to send a MAINTAINERS patch for this driver (and thus maintain the driver :-)), or should I maintain it ? > I could also take over maintenance the following driver, but I don't have > access to a hardware platform that uses it: > > i2c/mt9v011.ko = i2c/mt9v011.c > > These are, as far as I know, co-maintained by Sakari and me :-) > > i2c/adp1653.ko = i2c/adp1653.c > i2c/as3645a.ko = i2c/as3645a.c -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
