On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 18:56, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:32:18PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Hi Eduardo, > > > > On 5/7/19 6:34 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This series looks at Eduardo suggestions from [1] > > > and Thomas commit aff39be0ed97 to replace various > > > object_initialize + qdev_set_parent_bus calls by > > > sysbus_init_child_obj(). > > > > Do you think you can take this series? > > Else, via which tree it should go? > > I was expecting the maintainers of each architecture to apply the > patches for their areas.
This in my experience rarely happens, because splitting up a patchset is effort and there's a coordination problem working out who's going to take which patches -- it's why it works better to have several series each of which covers one submaintainer's area, rather than one big series which then doesn't have an obvious path into the tree. (Personally I also tend to treat omnibus patch series as "somebody else's problem" whereas patch series that are mostly or entirely arm changes go on my list as needing to be dealt with...) > Are the arm, microblaze, mips, and ppc maintainers OK with that? No objections for arm if the patches have been reviewed. thanks -- PMM
