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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 8076BC433DF for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEAC20776 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 06:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="D7Uw9a/J" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731246AbgEZG7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 02:59:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33322 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728172AbgEZG7l (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 02:59:41 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x443.google.com (mail-wr1-x443.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::443]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7641C03E97E for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 23:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x443.google.com with SMTP id j16so6828141wrb.7 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 23:59:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=Dz97bPhLZ2ojNQGt11gbxPQ9ck+IuPqmj2aW0HoNGhg=; b=D7Uw9a/JVKnF0pVA+pYqWXeBRUa/98xIhoXCxzZ0fMF6kxK3Yclb5IyPwH1rQvZcQx PRIDQjMWomTvrUmpx10glsAB0F9n+0wjDUtkRQbjinYPxpQcCNIO911QKzLlQ8dy20R6 /seAYXBtxV2WEX1sL94NgARBwogsDH7He7z0moGleqimmz5jG/fQ79ihd/ZoBE4sAa9d gWPBNgQkl8ogkDEwKnaxbtIvQE4XdpF7Tqinb8gypUmNoaE5WgChBHQK/SxNSXTGgkZY oVb7CkMzDuEw7Wm3JULpbd7dGpMzTWm+5+vCOYwwuEdb8pv0EjRGzemUS4NkOl++5zQk FI/w== 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=Dz97bPhLZ2ojNQGt11gbxPQ9ck+IuPqmj2aW0HoNGhg=; b=Djq6hejbeeyMwdBWSaJ2lcVNc1kle4EjIpiqDP0rNxWk9sBjQvSG7nyAVRDgGc7VmE 9ebWS2QLNJ3vBz9OHiCGudvwFm2uKLvDnxb3AwEbfVwTBSbWI0M2VrhETczFSy2JW6PB u2ghIMN9KzBl6YcSM9t+bB2vFd1NxXO6zsUKDb0Xqy1RBouLxkaDsrtzxakjtMIqmpYG XvQFWhDca1UyWDsp0eY6FOfi1RhSBLF/owynMgj42Te2BH9YyBxNfPA1rs8O/jKjhAq8 cdHfGjJbXXFvrxFGleAPwSLmxjWNCBvhaKNSbRQb6Fakyq0hmW9lx9+hLqace1UamRvF Ys6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VcZi/Xv++myFfI6njKencEK+xaXqo6KtnxN6J/+toC7BmOxxP NTpIaeSHzTT1kWphjPSB+4cE2g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+bsauGUqy0+jK+Ts+WdqeB/X3jRFwdtLs+MM/yik3Rw1liGYIXDZchJ+h6BTQeTJhUpK2XA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:128b:: with SMTP id f11mr18590698wrx.227.1590476378170; Mon, 25 May 2020 23:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell ([95.149.164.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l204sm10601698wmf.19.2020.05.25.23.59.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 May 2020 23:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 07:59:35 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Thierry Reding Cc: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , 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: <20200526065935.GA3628@dell> 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> <20200522125028.GG2163848@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200522125028.GG2163848@ulmo> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:31:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against > > > > > > > > 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 approval, > > > > > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large. > > > > > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and > > > > > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl? If so, consider pruning > > > > > > > > that a little. Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 argument > > > > > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of > > > > > > the patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 have > > > > > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the > > > > > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the > > > > > > Acks you need on your remaining patches. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe, > > > > > > > > > > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed > > > > > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches > > > > > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again). > > > > > > > > This has been a common theme over the past few months. > > > > > > > > Perhaps he has changed employer/project? > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > 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/ > > > > > 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. > > > > 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? I had it in my mind that I'd apply it, as MFD is usually the central repo to a lot of these cross-subsystem type patchsets, and the fact that I'm already set-up for it (I have scripts which make this easy). However, as long as a pull-request is sent out for us to potentially pull from, it really makes no difference to me. Go for it! :) -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog