Hi Krzysztof, On 2017년 01월 06일 02:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> This patch adds the 'ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES' entry >> in order to review and test the upcoming patches as a supporter. >> I have developed the low-level devices and power related devices for >> Exyno5433 and TM2/E board. >> >> Moreover, Andi proposed himself as a reviewer for Exynos5433 and TM2/E. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index cfff2c9e3d94..96c055e8dd0b 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -1712,6 +1712,13 @@ F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/samsung-sram.txt >> F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pd-samsung.txt >> N: exynos >> >> +ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES >> +M: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> +R: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> +L: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (moderated for non-subscribers) >> +S: Supported >> +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433* >> + > > Review and testing is always highly appreciated and you are doing, > Chanwoo, great work. I would like to sincerely thank you for that. > Samsung probably should thank you, as well. :) > > As for the additional sub-entry, I do not see any need for creating > such entries for specific DTSes. This looks like overkill. > I'm in charge of verifying the all features of Exynos5433 and testing the Exynos5433-based TM/TM2E board in order to guarantee the stabilization and performance with Platform because TM2/TM2E is Tizen reference board. So, I just proposed this patch to prevent the missing patch. But, if you think it is not proper, I respect the opinion of maintainer. > At the same time I would like to strongly avoid something which is > happening for example in our DRM where we have *four* maintainers but > only *one* is responding. We can add bazilions of maintainers to satisfy > Samsung KPIs but still this might not help reviewing patches (damn, why > am I waiting with this small [0] thing since 21st of October?). > > On the other hand, this is just my personal opinion. If the broad > open-source community would like to do any changes here > (add/remove/move/whatever) I do not mind at all. > > Best regards and happy New Year! :D > Krzysztof > > > -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics
null
