From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@linaro.org (Kevin Hilman) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:49:46 -0700 Subject: [V2 PATCH] cpuidle: add maintainer entry In-Reply-To: <1366974344-26064-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> (Daniel Lezcano's message of "Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:05:44 +0200") References: <1366974344-26064-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <87txmtz179.fsf@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Daniel Lezcano writes: > Currently the cpuidle drivers are spread across the different archs. > > The patch submission for cpuidle are following different path: the cpuidle core > code goes to linux-pm, the ARM drivers goes to arm-soc or the SoC specific > tree, sh goes through sh arch tree, pseries goes through PowerPC and > finally intel goes through Len's tree while acpi_idle goes under linux-pm. > > That makes difficult to consolidate the code and to propagate modifications > from the cpuidle core to the different drivers. > > Hopefully, a movement has initiated to put the cpuidle drivers into the > drivers/cpuidle directory like cpuidle-calxeda.c and cpuidle-kirkwood.c > > Add an explicit maintainer entry in the MAINTAINER to clarify the situation > and prevent new cpuidle drivers to goes to an arch directory. > > The upstreaming process is unchanged: Rafael takes the patches to merge them > into its tree but with the acked-by from the driver's maintainer. So the header > must contains the name of the maintainer. > > This organization will be the same than cpufreq. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano > Acked-by: Linus Walleij > Acked-by: Andrew Lunn #for kirkwood > Acked-by: Jason Cooper #for kirkwood Acked-by: Kevin Hilman