Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] ARM: DRA7: hwmod: Add ocp2scp3 and sata hwmods

[Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>]

+ Rajendra, Nishant and Kevin.
as you were mentioned in the discussion.

cheers,
-roger

On 06/15/2014 06:33 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>
>>> From: Nikhil Devshatwar <nikhil.nd@ti.com>
>>>
>>> Add hwmods for ocp2scp3 and sata modules.
>>>
>>> [Roger Q] Clean up.
>>
>> Sorry for the delay on this.  Have been corresponding with TI to figure 
>> out what to do about these DRA7xx/AM43xx patches, since I don't have 
>> boards or public documentation for these devices, so it's impossible for 
>> me to meaningfully review the patches.  Looks like boards and/or public 
>> docs won't be coming any time soon.
>>
>> So for my part, here's what I'll need to merge any hwmod patches that 
>> involve AM437x or DRA7xx:
>>
>> 1. A Reviewed-by: from one of the following folks (which should come from 
>> a different person than who is submitting the patches):
>>
>> Roger Quadros
>> Nishanth Menon
>> Rajendra Nayak
>> Kevin Hilman
>> Tony Lindgren
>>
>> 2. A Tested-by: from one of the following folks (who can be the same as 
>> the person who is the same as the person who is submitting the patches):
>>
>> Nishanth Menon
>> Rajendra Nayak
>> Kevin Hilman 
>> Tony Lindgren
>>
>> Once these are in place, I'd be happy to queue it for 3.16.
> 
> I've tried to clarify this a bit.  The update is below.
> 
> 
> - Paul
> 
> 
> 
> For boards that I don't have access to, that I don't have 
> documentation for, such as the AM43xx and DRA7xx), for me to merge or ack 
> SoC infrastructure or PM-related patches, I want to have:
> 
> 1. a Reviewed-by: from people who:
> 
> a. I think know something about SoC integration or PM in general, and 
> about OMAP-style integration specifically; and
> 
> b. who have a track record of doing strong and detailed reviews of that 
> code, or who have contributed significantly to that code in the past.
> 
> My initial list of those reviewers is listed above, and I am happy to 
> consider extending it or modifying that list.
> 
> 
> 2. confidence that the patch or series has been tested against a mainline 
> commit and isn't obviously breaking other things, like PM, and confidence 
> that it's not adding new runtime warnings.
> 
> I've listed an initial set of people above who I feel have proven track 
> records in testing who I'm happy to accept Tested-by:s without further 
> explanation.  I'm sure I've missed some folks and if anyone who should be 
> on that list is offended that I didn't mention them, please accept my 
> apologies.  For other folks, like yourself, who aren't on that list (yet), 
> please just specifically state:
> 
> a. what mainline commit they've tested the patch against,
> 
> b. what other prerequisite patches were needed for the patch to apply,
> 
> c. and a cut-and-paste of the serial console boot log from the boot 
> portion of the test.
> 
> in such a way that myself or someone else can easily doublecheck it. 
> 
> And frankly, I'll probably be happy to merge it.
> 
> After someone has done these three things a few times, and I gain 
> confidence that they're doing the right thing, I'm happy to add them to 
> my list.
> 
> The testing doesn't have to be expressed via a Tested-by: tag in cases 
> where you're testing as part of a Signed-off-by:.  Just be sure to state 
> those three things above as part of the patch or series message.  The boot 
> log can either be placed on a different page and linked to, or sent in 
> another public E-mail.
> 
> If you can get two or three people to do the above, that's great - the 
> more, the better.
> 
> ...
> 
> These two steps do not apply to boards that I have in my testbed or which 
> I have documentation for (although they would definitely be very welcome 
> in those cases too).
>