From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:50:26 +0100 Message-ID: <577FAFA2.6040509@arm.com> 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 foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:42948 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755245AbcGHNue (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:50:34 -0400 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: Sudeep Holla , Hanjun Guo , "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 On 08/07/16 14:22, 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. > > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not > expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I agree. > I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. > > Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please > manifest yourselves. > Yes sounds good to me. -- Regards, Sudeep