Hello, [adding Linus and lkml to Cc: and adding some more context] On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 10:21:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > given that I don't succeed in getting any feedback for my patch set, I'm > trying with a pull request today. This is for a series that is currently in v7 and didn't get any feedback at all yet. The history is: v1: 2020-10-13, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20201013082132.661993-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx no feedback at all v2: 2021-03-01, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210301110821.1445756-1-uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx kernel test robot identified some issues v3: 2021-03-01, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210301135053.1462168-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx I added a few driver patches to show the benefit. (However in a way that the autobuilders don't understand, so there were some false positive build failure reports.) v4: 2021-03-30, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210330181755.204339-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Got some feedback for the converted drivers by the respective maintainers. Some were indifferent, some found it good v5: 2021-04-22, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210422065726.1646742-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fixed a problem in one of the driver changes (i2c-imx), no feedback apart from pointing out a few typos, silence from the clk maintainers v6: 2021-04-26, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210426141730.2826832-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Just the typos fixed, no feedback v6 resend: 2021-05-10, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210510061724.940447-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx no changes in code. Got some feedback from Jonathan Cameron v7: 2021-05-10, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210510174142.986250-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Adress Jonathan's feedback, recieved some more acks from non-clk people pull request: 2021-07-09, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20210609202123.u5rmw7al4x3rrvun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 11:26:58AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thursday, July 22, 2021, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > What about adding gkh to the list explaining the situation to him? > > > > > > Greg doesn't like devm_ stuff. > > > > > > I already asked Arnd who doesn't want to interfere and akpm who didn't > > > react either up to now. > > > > Wow, okay, that is frustrating. > > The situation simply shows the process gap and One Maintainer nowadays is > far from enough to satisfy demands. Technically there are two maintainers for drivers/clk, Michael Turquette and Stephen Boyd. It seems Michael is MIA and Stephen doesn't have the capacity to address all requests. > What I think about is that we need to escalate this to Linus and > others and elaborate the mechanisms how to squeeze a new (additional) > maintainer when the original one is not responsive. Let’s say some > procedural steps. Otherwise we doomed because of human factor. Assuming there was some process for this, is there someone who is willing to take responsibility here? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
