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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 A0C43C282DD for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFA52072A for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com header.i=@broadcom.com header.b="Q57iKVYV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728674AbgAGSzj (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:55:39 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:51326 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728358AbgAGSzh (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:55:37 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id d73so673879wmd.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:55:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=gdW12zHykwT9gXQ2GutX9cXAWDnAxLstuAPg8msRCNo=; b=Q57iKVYVmYZRnAIEMlGhCUBR3dOB6QHScJxSyRgZtl+1+k0rbltUro8ovHrSt5eIJb nvsH1rNsY8+f3A5KuKFD/v9k+59v1HM9Bngq9/oybxnoI0DLd2Zd8lO2JNoIyhWHd4p7 RA+jOX7KffLx9NcI1I4SawOJLsEl4pEHWsGN0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=gdW12zHykwT9gXQ2GutX9cXAWDnAxLstuAPg8msRCNo=; b=N8YdldyPPu7ifp9z/BYNN0OkifT6h0Svnl3eyLhN/Fsh9WOZq5BGvd5TwjMpGfL7ZW 900ZoGuCPBuO2HKmuyTp8AT8KTQXjluejNuV18e0h0dvkjXHzOcR22ytFeoBgwge6JtO jX1Mr5fKnurQlxjSG+IOQNqanamD3mbmd2yUZaJSUKu4Nt9/V8v5fvcTS7FukSczkAgM cOZJClG0sateH+TG8k1qYCBGZvHs/GMItBysWqqb66MEQ50jPJzTP9TC/p7Uu7eiVyfw 76mgAvhNVQbeX9yXEOXEtUEnDXdm8PWVOASYAoKr5Qm9vByTghQH1q9vlWw2rJycLyeo k2uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXw2GC9A5xPAPIFubsHArfNS4oXVfMZL+XLn5ZN+TtUosfrbLq4 J9rJngkcCKiGI4jXCHRU0ubqUw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwgcvkyjoG1ZSHDuX6NjkGZEW/hWJo5H1F7/tqLVY1GuGlZN/QCIS9gB70daEzeriWuXlv8VQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:294:: with SMTP id 20mr433999wmk.97.1578423333414; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:55:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.136.13.65] ([192.19.228.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g25sm30992623wmh.3.2020.01.07.10.55.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:55:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: EDAC driver for DMC520 To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Tony Luck , Yuqing Shen , Lei Wang , James Morse , Robert Richter , BCM Kernel Feedback , LKML , shiping.linux@gmail.com References: <20200107184926.GL29542@zn.tnic> From: Scott Branden Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:55:27 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200107184926.GL29542@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lei/Shiping, On 2020-01-07 10:49 a.m., Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:57:26AM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >> Hello EDAC Maintainers, >> >> Could somebody have a look at the DMC520 patch series that has been waiting >> for a response since November: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11248785/ > Well, the dt bindings stuff is still being discussed: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11248783/ > > Also, looking at this again, the patch authorship looks really fishy: > > Sender is > > From: Shiping Ji > > however, he doesn't have his SOB in there and previous iterations were > done with Lei Wang whose SOB *is* there so I dunno what's going on. > > *Especially* if Lei Wang is being added as a maintainer of that driver > by the second patch but he's not sending this driver himself. If this > driver is going to be orphaned the moment it lands upstream, I'm not > going to take it. Shiping/Lei could you please provide appropriate signed-off-by? Also, if you do not have an appropriate maintainer for the driver we have Yuqing Shen who can be maintainer of this driver. > > So at least those two things need to be fixed/clarified first. > > HTH. >