On 3 July 2018 at 01:28, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I can have a look, but really I think these should go via the >> ppc tree -- the device is used in a ppc machine and an sh4 one, >> and the ppc tree is much more active than sh4. > > Hm, well, if you like. Although the gradual creep of my > maintainership scope into things I know less and less about makes me > rather nervous. I tried to convince Balaton Zoltan to become sm501 > maintainer, but he didn't bite.
It's not like I know anything more about the sm501 than you do :-) The arm parts of the tree have a lot of board and device code I'm not familiar with either. Generally the approach I use is: * eyeball the code to see if it's doing anything that looks "obviously wrong", failing to use correct QEMU APIs, etc * anything that touches 'core' code or code common to multiple machines gets closer scrutiny * I might check the data sheet if I'm feeling enthusastic or if the code looks like it's doing weird things, but often not, especially if the code has had review from somebody else * if I have a test image to hand I'll do a smoke test, but often I don't have a test image Basically I think the important thing is to make sure the codebase stays maintainable and generally the quality bar in terms of using the right APIs and design approaches tends to ratchet up rather than down. If our implementation of an obscure device isn't actually right, that doesn't really affect very many users, so I worry less about that side of things. thanks -- PMM
