From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA38EC433DF for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FF9206F6 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="q+YdiOxy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729526AbgEVLbw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 07:31:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54234 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728281AbgEVLbv (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 07:31:51 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D04C061A0E for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id g12so8629128wrw.1 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:31:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=H+185K8zSeFBmMQkc0S2RpgtIxTxnwzQ8bRdc8/PQjM=; b=q+YdiOxy50fn0EDWPfyux9D59iEKwr2m1eM/cY/K375GdUBqXo3pp8piI4gBaf+77n 5JFz0Rdi1Li+a4O7EXM5o/44mHHtxvSCxfDUtcA6i7aF/qlWsy4CFzZOdXmp/PELASm1 js6fRLjYLxNuTscq5IysyTvBt/OdhbpBaFAlJNve8xt0rItgtgEfHkDSKhz52ka0lRh5 Lkosx4VnWq1Ero3FcBFS61qSRLJsMGkEy3mN2B2PGAave3WtTUfChxXhHHs9587Kwc1k 2zu9agWN+tmBk2jOuD3qLe1B/3y32XOVqGYrtfROZCihGW/LVilfrIRKqxxmMvKmOESx qMTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=H+185K8zSeFBmMQkc0S2RpgtIxTxnwzQ8bRdc8/PQjM=; b=bWx72a2LOCP4rvoDAJWYgOrWrw1E1ckkRhmj8/5VNi1on2a4++QQdtvrCSmMbDZ8fR 6GGOaMy5MPQhB8+cySDst0gIGt2ZZAlT0m02bn4fpU0FNx78JcvIZLuJQj5EOoSCziv3 qPKvRXZVrJjS7z6G1/mSMMNCnbxV1C7xtQhCIonoCfr06y5EsyzrbF0MElhYHmznuyyX L9ttQSkJFpnToi+PfkiYrcHn9KEXKlTph9RH4adt3OeS+WHXQIBoBTNIbhVZhJhyFHpH 6lliiA4/vSyCLBBU8Cmpbs7FnfzUezQeFf3Jxn6ckOomoHLDMfYbsoYx5xQeFB4kz7TH XKKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ImPhRCUFMG5sD2XuEnoKhStFYxOMAP3sZ1PkL3SRONzOGnMZ8 aAWaxKy/3a1mpibpad3WAxeGAg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMrG645+ScNEZnUJ9mYLHUahwPJZi/ay1v1u3J3vkccuz0qPf8MklUXDpEa8FUI0I6irUaQw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:cd0d:: with SMTP id w13mr3254074wrm.150.1590147109398; Fri, 22 May 2020 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell ([95.149.164.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z9sm9252016wrp.66.2020.05.22.04.31.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 22 May 2020 04:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:31:47 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Thierry Reding Cc: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy , David Collins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Thompson , Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , Guenter Roeck , Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Message-ID: <20200522113147.GU271301@dell> References: <20200423114857.GG3612@dell> <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org> <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell> <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org> <20200427064434.GA3559@dell> <20200520231508.GA29437@codeaurora.org> <20200521071505.GL271301@dell> <20200522111657.GA2163848@ulmo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200522111657.GA2163848@ulmo> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against > > > > > > things like flooding and spamming. One of those protections is a > > > > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message". Most of the time this > > > > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval, > > > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large. > > > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and > > > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl? If so, consider pruning > > > > > > that a little. Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent > > > > > > changes to a file. As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend > > > > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X > > > > > > years ago. Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first > > > > > > instance and see how far that takes you. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets > > > > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the > > > > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain > > > > > unreviewed by anyone. > > > > > > > > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care > > > > even less than your original group). However it *is* a good argument > > > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of > > > > the patches. > > > > > > > > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe > > > > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every > > > > > > ML. It's still much more useful for the correct people to have > > > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the > > > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches. > > > > > > > > Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the > > > > Acks you need on your remaining patches. > > > > > > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe, > > > > > > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed > > > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches > > > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added > > > what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of > > > times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and > > > somehow it seems like this set has lost traction. > > > > > > Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more > > > eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain > > > unreviewed. > > > > Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again). > > > > This has been a common theme over the past few months. > > > > Perhaps he has changed employer/project? > > My work on PWM is purely done in my spare time. I don't get paid for any > of it. I currently have two kids that need home-schooling, as many > others probably do, and I have a full time job doing non-PWM related > things. As a result my spare time is close to nil these days. This is no different to many others. I too am not paid for this work, but it's still my responsibly to ensure a reply within a reasonable amount of time. We can all appreciate that the latest situation has exacerbated issues, but a reasonable level of PWM participation, blocking various patch-sets has been lacking for months before we'd even heard of Covid-19 [0]. If you need help, just ask for it. I am willing to step up and review patches if you're overloaded. Uwe is already listed as a designated reviewer. Perhaps between the 3 of us we can work something out in order to reduce the latency. [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/ > I very much appreciate all the effort that others have spent in getting > this reviewed. I haven't been able to keep a very close eye on this, but > even the latest versions have some comments, so I didn't consider this > ready yet. If that's changed and everybody's okay with the changes, then > I can apply this to for-next. We haven't got all that much time left > before the merge window and I had hoped this would be ready earlier so > that we'd have more time for this in linux-next. But I'd be willing to > at least give it a try. If it starts to look like there are going to be > issues with this I can always back them out and we can have another go > next release. If you would be so kind as to review the PWM patches, I can take them in but I can't do anything without your Ack. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog