From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:04:37 -0500
Message-ID: <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <CACxGe6v_BvCQqp8d=LaQ8HeaOU1Zh_HPpwFTdwOjHUbqXsnQ8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>, "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>, "jcm@redhat.com" <jcm@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>, "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" <phoenix.liyi@huawei.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>, "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, Yijing
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
> > > I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up
> > > for v3.20?
> 
> > Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise
> > that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well,
> > apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on
> > other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any
> > acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge
> > the series, there is no way it can be done without additional
> > reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement
> 
> There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all
> being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with
> subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for
> just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their
> subsystems.  Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly
> to the relevant maintainers?

I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to
change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected
subsystem.

thx,

Jason.