Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] firmware: sysfb: Unorphan sysfb files

[Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>]

Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> writes:

[...]

>> 
>> That's just because there is an entry for arch/x86/. The problem then is
>> that there isn't an entry for drivers/firmware. It was orphaned then just
>> because it was moved to a directory that has no entry in MAINTAINERS.
>> 
>> > See the difference?
>> 
>> There is no need to have such a rude tone.
>
> It wasn't meant to be rude, sorry. The point is that any change in

No worries.

> drivers/firmware/sysfb* and respective include are not visible to (any)
> maintainers, they just might be sent for a luck of somebody to pick
> them up by browsing the LKML for such things.
>

Right. But get_maintainer.pl still reports I think the correct people to Cc:

./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f -- drivers/firmware/sysfb*
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> (commit_signer:4/4=100%,authored:2/4=50%,added_lines:11/43=26%,removed_lines:5/11=45%,commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:1/1=100%,removed_lines:30/30=100%)
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> (commit_signer:4/4=100%,authored:1/4=25%,added_lines:19/43=44%,commit_signer:1/1=100%)
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> (commit_signer:3/4=75%,authored:1/4=25%,added_lines:13/43=30%,removed_lines:6/11=55%)
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> (commit_signer:1/4=25%)
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)

In my opinion both Thomas and me have much more context and knowledge of
the sysfb codebase than the x86 maintainers. It was just for historical
reasons that the sysfb code ended in the arch/x86/ sub-directory.

But you are correct that dri-devel at least should also be in the Cc list.

> ...
>
>> >> > +F:	drivers/firmware/sysfb*.c
>> >
>> >> I would prefer these to be in the "DRM DRIVER FOR FIRMWARE FRAMEBUFFERS"
>> >> entry instead of "DRM DRIVERS" since the former is what has most of the
>> >> code for the sysfb infrastructure.
>> >
>> > Then do it, please, fix the above.
>> 
>> Part of the review process is to give feedback to patch authors. I don't
>> understand why you expect me to fix an issue you brought up just because
>> I ask you to rework your patch a little.
>
> In my humble opinion, the author of the patch that makes the problem appear
> can help to fix that as well. Are my expectations too high?
>
> In any case, this was an ad-hoc patch due to the second one, so this one
> may be considered as a administrative bug report.
>

That's OK, but it wasn't framed as a bug report but as a patch and that's why
I gave my feedback. But I'll post a patch and add a Reported-by tag from you.

Thomas, I think we can then only merge patch #2 and I will take care of #1.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat