From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168E1C433DF for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBCB206C3 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 12:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dc/dnboV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729668AbgEVMue (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 08:50:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38280 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729344AbgEVMud (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 08:50:33 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x543.google.com (mail-ed1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::543]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC1C1C061A0E; Fri, 22 May 2020 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x543.google.com with SMTP id bs4so9189547edb.6; Fri, 22 May 2020 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=eRSlc2Hd7nD1W5EeobVU9LqWn3nd5suJfL1xDaYvSGQ=; b=dc/dnboV6baCxjENSjpI5FPNkV0vcQCzQCPzTx/S1tC2doJB7bf3LwzBhqEsrsIABf UYET1z3jXG5+cNQIIUVW54pjqMuhTCtAiHyzYDO4F9l2pbGNQwTM4llR+v+IDumRtA7/ Jse32Aew+GsWweiF1WX472bmbAsfN/wXRMgARuPKoo3megYqXpLCnpMI0gYtlsCY8vxx ngHCKj63lP+lj1+3ZsrajSUCAfrby/bORVMrRu9Bh48hPG+eNxxj1UIKBEvyZ8I/GE6O 3Io4nazNXzHLHBloQl1uPF3eyjy/hTmjsEfZtVv60jXnUD7F/M2Aailvgiw2Df0AaOTH 5ToQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=eRSlc2Hd7nD1W5EeobVU9LqWn3nd5suJfL1xDaYvSGQ=; b=IJHSxEgr2cGd9s0W5OAg6z8hZEUpyr3sr9KRRffnm1JzSZRVdRhlsR/S+qOCTKfvz/ YU8xPofyKQmzhunr6ajtQRhBRgGv6HcErWX/YzPCju4cQXvNNoOQz9/had/lbOZi5ey+ ZJw7+RaskTpN9m0X17vstipPzj3aTwcHG8wzBoB4m+oLeoXYEDUFPvJqmiksQDgffSXk EE6ytc94Gj3vVOCRNan44aQo1wcAhML99xIPua6J7k/Gf7EyNbctTIZ0HCgKACOr2j3l mlL8leBURxcAo8qBrr3jt/o5NqLAhlMk/Dnj8jX9JX8oxx6c+Kuhz3zZxKnt4yFk/d4D ReUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uRFYVvJYce1m04YzZiSNxH9og0eR1qpnl2iUSqpGPDVZi0fWW g2pi2C5gfG0R1JI1vPlUq3I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygNmWwsJR/tdi3YhqwvaCYkUmCCEg9YkQBEfWsQA9jZoh6/JX6OIPbZua+4AqlTydXimOI/w== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca49:: with SMTP id j9mr2941559edt.186.1590151831320; Fri, 22 May 2020 05:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (pd9e51079.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [217.229.16.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id se2sm8014294ejb.42.2020.05.22.05.50.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 22 May 2020 05:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:50:28 +0200 From: Thierry Reding To: Lee Jones Cc: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy , David Collins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Thompson , Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , Guenter Roeck , Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Message-ID: <20200522125028.GG2163848@ulmo> References: <20200423114857.GG3612@dell> <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org> <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell> <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org> <20200427064434.GA3559@dell> <20200520231508.GA29437@codeaurora.org> <20200521071505.GL271301@dell> <20200522111657.GA2163848@ulmo> <20200522113147.GU271301@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V32M1hWVjliPHW+c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200522113147.GU271301@dell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.13.1 (2019-12-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --V32M1hWVjliPHW+c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote: >=20 > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > >=20 > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > >=20 > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections ag= ainst > > > > > > > things like flooding and spamming. One of those protections = is a > > > > > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message". Most of the = time this > > > > > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and a= pproval, > > > > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is s= o large. > > > > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintain= er and > > > > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl? If so, consider = pruning > > > > > > > that a little. Contributors do not tend to care about subseq= uent > > > > > > > changes to a file. As someone who receives a lot of patches,= I tend > > > > > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a = change X > > > > > > > years ago. Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first > > > > > > > instance and see how far that takes you. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few p= atchsets > > > > > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded = the > > > > > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series = remain > > > > > > unreviewed by anyone. > > > > >=20 > > > > > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care > > > > > even less than your original group). However it *is* a good argu= ment > > > > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on al= l of > > > > > the patches. > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible= , maybe > > > > > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by = every > > > > > > > ML. It's still much more useful for the correct people to ha= ve > > > > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple t= imes. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors fro= m the > > > > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire t= he > > > > > Acks you need on your remaining patches. > > > >=20 > > > > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe, > > > >=20 > > > > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, remov= ed > > > > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all pa= tches > > > > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've ad= ded > > > > what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of > > > > times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, = and > > > > somehow it seems like this set has lost traction. > > > >=20 > > > > Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more > > > > eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain > > > > unreviewed. > > >=20 > > > Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again). > > >=20 > > > This has been a common theme over the past few months. > > >=20 > > > Perhaps he has changed employer/project? > >=20 > > My work on PWM is purely done in my spare time. I don't get paid for any > > of it. I currently have two kids that need home-schooling, as many > > others probably do, and I have a full time job doing non-PWM related > > things. As a result my spare time is close to nil these days. >=20 > This is no different to many others. I too am not paid for this work, > but it's still my responsibly to ensure a reply within a reasonable > amount of time. I realize that this is the same for many others. Still, you seemed to suggest that the lack of time that I was able to spend on PWM was somehow related to me changing employers, so I wanted to clarify that this isn't=20 > We can all appreciate that the latest situation has exacerbated issues, > but a reasonable level of PWM participation, blocking various > patch-sets has been lacking for months before we'd even heard of > Covid-19 [0]. Covid-19 started to impact me around mid-March, and you'll see that that's about the time that I stopped maintaining patchwork. > If you need help, just ask for it. Hm... who do you go and ask for help? Every maintainer I know is already at least as busy as I am. > I am willing to step up and review patches if you're overloaded. Uwe > is already listed as a designated reviewer. Perhaps between the 3 of > us we can work something out in order to reduce the latency. That's very kind of you. Yes, I'd be willing to do this as a sort of group maintenance, and perhaps even eventually step away from my role as maintainer entirely if I think somebody else will do a better job. I do still care about the PWM subsystem, having looked after it for a couple of years, so I do want any hand-off to be somewhat orderly. > [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/ >=20 > > I very much appreciate all the effort that others have spent in getting > > this reviewed. I haven't been able to keep a very close eye on this, but > > even the latest versions have some comments, so I didn't consider this > > ready yet. If that's changed and everybody's okay with the changes, then > > I can apply this to for-next. We haven't got all that much time left > > before the merge window and I had hoped this would be ready earlier so > > that we'd have more time for this in linux-next. But I'd be willing to > > at least give it a try. If it starts to look like there are going to be > > issues with this I can always back them out and we can have another go > > next release. >=20 > If you would be so kind as to review the PWM patches, I can take them > in but I can't do anything without your Ack. Looking at v14 I think there are no longer any discussions (looks like the last comment I thought was from v14 was actually on v13 and it seems to have been solved in v14 now) and there are Acked-bys for all the non- PWM patches, so there's nothing in the way of me applying this to the PWM tree. I can let it soak there for a few days and send out a stable branch if anyone needs it if there aren't any huge issues. Does that sound like a plan? Thierry --V32M1hWVjliPHW+c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAl7HypIACgkQ3SOs138+ s6EgBBAAhRHwPHK5y0SWm5bZRqathEB+GQMA0YBvbOyLXuS/GeZv6CQjMGzKuYgb 54WqjNBLgxJb8TGS8swQbRgS8uhYHNmNPHV787Xx0zL8DGZNTAE+0LRUSOVCK9lK HrIA8SqQskNkaNdM74mZNgkdR+JyRST3N/uYRm8Q5nLEqwKM2en7alyC6CeknrmE BNwM+QvXKcc9IRbUUDWTVYws2HK3lBZbKUVoleMtco7eLSmhTahpEamTcU0lVbZY cxT6yiT1gwjNJhk7A+QWh4L4dT/JuKZry86xjIPDgYaoPsPljqUShxNBq0aBsz0B WCWg2Pd4jI78nl0lxCX1RulsjJQQyMS7LlZxq8y3WC0n7OGAfRLdVVFbyLy4+6QK zC9g3EtFbGsFoR+L51FEWhcUbtofRLeKyvXKITyy54yoUock83K3Nal6pmFmMkrl Hv61xHX70O8HBKS6V/h3pQnvKvNBMmovo4A4JmkkSjCe9lxKh/OY+Fg2ZoEqUsk0 +L5LoHBhaCmsQwzWFUU0TYMPBpXxjLvB//NqElaJXSAKNtqXTYZT6qjojqmJ3JMU Kjalgac/13FKW03ULijqo6to1iWkCv3MJGqvSs0G/qDuyx2LCPAfKQw1PbJUGlQp +7KQCICqtGQquv8fFm3Od7u1HkUXJWYD498MeaQ0VUx4rY9grYA= =ysCw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V32M1hWVjliPHW+c--