Re: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Add SWIG Bindings to libcpupower

["John B. Wyatt IV" <jwyatt@redhat.com>]

I wanted to follow up on this since I am close to sending out the v2 of
this patchset.

3 points I wanted to raise:

1) Does everyone understand, is okay with the SWIG license, and wants to
proceed with me sending in a more complete version of this as a candidate for
upstreaming?

2) About maintainership: if I am to be the maintainer of this, how would
myself and John Kacur be listed? As a CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM
maintainer, a separate category below it called CPU POWER MONITORING SUBSYSTEM
PYTHON BINDINGS maintainer, or is not needed to be listed at this time?

A quick search for bindings shows what I believe to be all of them for device
tree. This may establish a new precedent.

If I was to be added, I assume it would be a separate commit in the v2
submission?

3) I had to comment out powercap_set_enabled

SWIG reported this symbol not being found despite being in powercap.h. I did a
quick search and was not able to find it's implementation in powercap.c. The
get equivalent powercap_get_enabled is in powercap.c. Wanted to check on this
just in case it is a bug or part of future functionality. I am assuming the
latter; I would send it v2 with that declaration commented out with a note
explaining it for users if there is no objection.
-- 
Sincerely,
John Wyatt
Software Engineer, Core Kernel
Red Hat