From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: treding@nvidia.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:38:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/6] MT8173 IOMMU SUPPORT In-Reply-To: <1448344693.13079.6.camel@mhfsdcap03> References: <1444357388-30257-1-git-send-email-yong.wu@mediatek.com> <20151014125620.GQ27420@8bytes.org> <1445488802.27202.67.camel@mhfsdcap03> <20151023092636.GX27420@8bytes.org> <1448344693.13079.6.camel@mhfsdcap03> Message-ID: <20151124103819.GE17658@ulmo.nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:58:13PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 11:26 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:40:02PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote: > > > But the mtk-iommu depend on the drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c(mtk-iommu > > > has called a function of the mtk-smi). > > > So if there is dependence here, How should we do to merge them? > > > > I can surely merge mtk-smi too, if it gets proper Reviewed-by and > > Acked-by tags from the maintainer(s). > > > > > > Joerg > > > Hi Joerg, > > About the driver/memory/, We don't know who is his maintainer. > MAINTAINERS file don't have drivers/memory maintainer. > From the history in drivers/memory/ it looks like most of the > drivers land with an ack from the architecture maintainer. > And Matthias Brugger is our "ARM/Mediatek SoC support" maintainer. > > Then do you mean that we need Matthias's ACK or whom others? Yes, I think the sub-architecture maintainer's ACK is probably going to be as good as it gets. Historically drivers/memory hasn't had enough of a common ground to instate a framework. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: