Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer

From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	rruigrok@codeaurora.org, harba@codeaurora.org,
	Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>,
	G Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
	wei@redhat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Wim
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:44:47 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon>

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?

[1]: 
https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/topic-gtdt-wakeup-timer_upstream_v7_devel

Thanks
Hanjun