On 12/16/21 9:07 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
On 16/12/2021 15:57, Sean Anderson wrote:
On 12/16/21 8:17 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
On 15/12/2021 18:47, Sean Anderson wrote:
This adds an entry in MAINTAINERS for the cdce9xx driver, since it was not
added when the driver was submitted. This will help future submitters
figure out who to CC.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com>
---
Tero, if you don't want to maintain this I'll resubmit this patch with the
orphaned status. Alternatively, perhaps Tom wants to maintain this driver since
it is used exclusively by boards he maintains.
Well, I am not actively maintaining this, as I am not employed by TI anymore. :)
That said, I don't see how much work there is needed for this driver anyways, it is very simple,
and it can be considered "completed". That's the reason I didn't initially put any
maintainer on it. Marking it "orphaned" would be a bit too harsh status for it imho, as
it is still used by TI platforms, and it gets actively tested by them.
Well, the issue that I would like to resolve is that in order to CC you
I had to look up who did the initial commit, and even then the email was
wrong (since it had your TI email). So for the benefit of future
hackers, I would like to record your current email. I suppose your
Reviewed-By on the first patch will do.
Yes, I understand your point, however adding a maintainer entry for every tiny
driver is a bit of an overkill.
I think it's great to have. It helps submitters know who to CC, and it
helps me know who I need a review/ack from. It also helps to know who
has hardware if a change needs testing, though perhaps you don't have
access to this hardware any more.
And well, it would also need an ack from the subsystem maintainer itself,
whether he/she wants to share the workload on it or not.
Because Lukasz has not been very active lately, I volunteered to be
clock subsystem maintainer.
U-boot contains a script called get_maintainer, that can be used to fetch the
valid maintainer entry for a file. In this case, it reports Lukasz, which,
imho, is just fine. cdce9xxx is not going to face many changes, and if any,
those are just generic framework changes/fixes which can be handled just fine
by the subsystem maintainers.
And that is why I wanted to have your email in MAINTAINERS. But since
you reviewed the other patch, I think it will pick up your new email. So
I don't think this patch is necessary.
--Sean
