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