From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo 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 Message-ID: <21ec2b0d-cde9-f86a-c39a-0fba5d02fd03@linaro.org> 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> <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:35887 "EHLO mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933082AbcGIDpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:45:46 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f176.google.com with SMTP id t190so18365060pfb.3 for ; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 20:45:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Lorenzo Pieralisi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "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 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