[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d082jtfn.fsf@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:19:24 +0300
From: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@...labora.com>
To: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Rule for bridge yaml dt binding maintainers?
Hello,
I got confused while doing the txt -> yaml conversion at [1] and
it's still not clear to me who should be added in the
"maintainers" field. Clearly not the maintainers as returned by
get_maintainer.pl. :)
Rob mentioned that "owners" should be manintainers but I also have
trouble picking the persons who should be owners / yaml
maintainers.
Looking at the completed bridge conversions in the latest
linux-next, I couldn't find a rule and the majority of bindings
are still txt:
$ find ./devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/ -name *txt | wc -l
23
$ find ./devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/ -name *yaml | wc -l
5
So my questions are:
1. Is there a general rule for assigning yaml file
owners/maintainers?
2. Is this vagueness specific to the bridge dt bindings only?
3. Who should step up and maintain these bindings? Original/new
authors, SoC, bridge, DRM maintainers etc.?
It would be useful to have a rule to make it easier to do these
conversions. We (Collabora) are considering doing the conversion
work.
Thank you,
Adrian
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11493009/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists