[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170105170951.2yftdz4nfqsgauoc@kozik-lap>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 19:09:51 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc: krzk@...nel.org, javier@....samsung.com, kgene@...nel.org,
andi.shyti@...sung.com, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add EXYNOS5433 ARM architectures entry as a
supporter
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> This patch adds the 'ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES' entry
> in order to review and test the upcoming patches as a supporter.
> I have developed the low-level devices and power related devices for
> Exyno5433 and TM2/E board.
>
> Moreover, Andi proposed himself as a reviewer for Exynos5433 and TM2/E.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index cfff2c9e3d94..96c055e8dd0b 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1712,6 +1712,13 @@ F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/samsung-sram.txt
> F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pd-samsung.txt
> N: exynos
>
> +ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES
> +M: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
> +R: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
> +L: linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
> +S: Supported
> +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433*
> +
Review and testing is always highly appreciated and you are doing,
Chanwoo, great work. I would like to sincerely thank you for that.
Samsung probably should thank you, as well. :)
As for the additional sub-entry, I do not see any need for creating
such entries for specific DTSes. This looks like overkill.
At the same time I would like to strongly avoid something which is
happening for example in our DRM where we have *four* maintainers but
only *one* is responding. We can add bazilions of maintainers to satisfy
Samsung KPIs but still this might not help reviewing patches (damn, why
am I waiting with this small [0] thing since 21st of October?).
On the other hand, this is just my personal opinion. If the broad
open-source community would like to do any changes here
(add/remove/move/whatever) I do not mind at all.
Best regards and happy New Year! :D
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists