From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:22:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1890708.ZTyM2PUGdP@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160707134023.GA655@red-moon> <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:42763 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754746AbcGHNVN (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:21:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Hanjun Guo , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Graeme Gregory , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Fu Wei , Len Brown , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , rruigrok@codeaurora.org, harba@codeaurora.org, Christopher Covington , Timur Tabi , G Gregory , Al Stone , Jon Masters , wei@redhat.com, Arnd On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > > Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some > > sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. > > To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do > that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. > That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per patch basis) and b) send you pull requests. Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please manifest yourselves. Thanks, Lorenzo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932180AbcGHNVU (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:21:20 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:42763 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754746AbcGHNVN (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:21:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:22:01 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Hanjun Guo , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Graeme Gregory , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Fu Wei , Len Brown , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , rruigrok@codeaurora.org, harba@codeaurora.org, Christopher Covington , Timur Tabi , G Gregory , Al Stone , Jon Masters , wei@redhat.com, Arnd Bergmann , Wim Van Sebroeck , Suravee Suthikulanit , Leo Duran , Steve Capper , Leif Lindholm , sudeep.holla@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer Message-ID: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1890708.ZTyM2PUGdP@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160707134023.GA655@red-moon> <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > > Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some > > sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. > > To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do > that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. > That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per patch basis) and b) send you pull requests. Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please manifest yourselves. Thanks, Lorenzo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:22:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer In-Reply-To: <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1890708.ZTyM2PUGdP@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160707134023.GA655@red-moon> <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > > Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some > > sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. > > To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do > that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. > That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per patch basis) and b) send you pull requests. Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please manifest yourselves. Thanks, Lorenzo