On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:47:37PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: > Was that wrong? Who else should I've send the patch to? Maybe they > should be added to the MAINTAINERS file? I'd have expected at least Jarkko (who's been actively working on the ACPI stuff for this driver) - in general MAINTAINERS is a bit unreliable, you should probably glance at git log. > Rafael and Len are on Cc because of [1] -- an effort to constify all > users of struct acpi_device_id. They're on Cc because of the ACPI > relation. I hope that clears it up. Consider if every single patch adding a const to an ACPI ID list really needs to go to the ACPI maintainers (I know I get a lot of really odd stuff registering SPI devices). > I was uncertain how to group those changes but tried to split them up > per-system. So you're seeing only the patches where you are mentioned > as a maintainer. I thought it would be less noise this way for the > non-ACPI related patches. It's a simple patch, after all. That bit is fine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
