"Arnd Bergmann" <a...@arndb.de> writes: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023, at 02:04, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> 01/03/2023 (Wed 14:23) Christophe Leroy wrote: >>> Le 28/02/2023 ?? 18:51, Arnd Bergmann a ??crit??: >>> Hope it clarifies how those reference boards are used. >> >> It was really useful input and gave an insight into how things get used. >> >> But let me put a slightly different slant on things. If there is no >> maintainer for the platform/architecture/CPU, then where is the >> obligation for mainline to keep it up to date just for your company to >> use the code/BSP as a reference? >> >> Do they continue to do this for one more year, or three or ... ??? >> Does someone list themselves in MAINTAINERS for arch/powerpc/83xx ? > ... >> >> If you see change 0123abcdef breaks boot on your platform, you have a >> legit voice to gripe about it right then and there. Don't wait!!! > > I think the answer here is that Christophe is already the only person > that does this, so he is the de-facto maintainer for ppc32 regardless > of whether he wants himself listed in the file or not:
Yes he is the de-facto 32-bit maintainer :) He's listed as a reviewer on the converged 64-bit/32-bit maintainers entry which is meant to reflect that: LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT) M: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> R: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> R: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> L: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org But we could add a separate 32-bit entry if people think that would make things clearer. Although I don't think we could run separate trees for 64-bit and 32-bit, there'd be too many conflicts, so in that way I think one entry makes sense. cheers
