From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 03:26:49 +0200 Message-ID: <3119857.QuQfKUSRGs@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:44887 "HELO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756809AbcGJBWK (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jul 2016 21:22:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , "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.comA On Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:44:47 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > 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. > > Fine to me. > > > > > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not > > Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS > file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes. > > > 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. > > Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly, > let's do that :) > > OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version > of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a > maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch > set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version? Frankly, I don't see a point in discussing the old version only if a new one is available already. Post it, please. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756962AbcGJBWM (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jul 2016 21:22:12 -0400 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:44887 "HELO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756809AbcGJBWK (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jul 2016 21:22:10 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , "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 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 03:26:49 +0200 Message-ID: <3119857.QuQfKUSRGs@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:44:47 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > 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. > > Fine to me. > > > > > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not > > Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS > file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes. > > > 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. > > Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly, > let's do that :) > > OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version > of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a > maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch > set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version? Frankly, I don't see a point in discussing the old version only if a new one is available already. Post it, please. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 03:26:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer In-Reply-To: <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> Message-ID: <3119857.QuQfKUSRGs@vostro.rjw.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:44:47 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > 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. > > Fine to me. > > > > > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not > > Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS > file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes. > > > 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. > > Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly, > let's do that :) > > OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version > of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a > maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch > set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version? Frankly, I don't see a point in discussing the old version only if a new one is available already. Post it, please. Thanks, Rafael