On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:33:56AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:30 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > > > My first RFC patches set has every driver separated. As they are > > > really specific to the platform, people seem to agree with grouping > > > them, mainly because they won't be shared. I changed that in the > > > following patches sets, and X86 maintainers seemed to be ok with > > > that. > It looks like things are going back and forth a bit. If I were Vivien, I > would be a bit frustrated by now and be close to giving up (Vivien, I > really commend you for your patience). OTOH I just looked back and saw that some of the review comments I just made were also made against the first version of this driver I noticed (v2) but appear to have been ignored, the request tracking stands out. > Is there a written guideline or policy people can look and point to > if/when something like this comes up ? Otherwise we may have the > LED/GPIO/xxx maintainers point one way, the X86 maintainers point the > other way, and thus may have reached a complete deadlock. I'm not sure I'm seeing much conflict here TBH, looking at the above and the history I have to hand I'd say it's reading like the x86 maintainers aren't fussed either way and the people doing kernel wide work on things like this prefer getting stuff integrated into the frameworks. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
