From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:50:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT
 support in arm_arch_timer
In-Reply-To: <20160708132201.GD3784@red-moon>
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>
Message-ID: <577FAFA2.6040509@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



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