From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:00:07 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT
 support in arm_arch_timer
In-Reply-To: <1603704.EGiVTcCxLR@vostro.rjw.lan>
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>
Message-ID: <2f0f9522-2d91-4f2f-e4bb-9c63f7676e78@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2016/7/7 21:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 07, 2016 02:40:23 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> [+Sudeep]
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> So is this a documentation issue in which case Fu Wei can add that to
>>>>>> the file to explain its limited to ARM64. Or we could even rename the
>>>>>> file acpi_arm64_gtdt.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems a pity as the comment on this series were minors to block
>>>>>> things on a filename/location.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me repeat what I said above:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm mostly concerned about how (and by whom) that code is going to be
>>>>> maintained going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not about documentation, it is about responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, I don't think I'm the right maintainer to apply the patch
>>>>> introducing this code and then handle bug reports regarding it and so
>>>>> on.  That has to be done by somebody else.
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on ACPI for years and upstreamed the ARM64 ACPI core
>>>> support (with lots of people's help), I'm willing to maintain the ARM64
>>>> ACPI code under drivers/acpi/ if no objections.
>>>
>>> OK
>>
>> I would ask you please to add Sudeep and myself for the ARM64 specific
>> ACPI code maintainership too.
>
> OK
>
>>> Can the ARM64-specific code go under drivers/acpi/arm64/ then, for clarity?

I'm fine with it as it helps for maintain.

Thanks
Hanjun