Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 13:16:57 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
> > > > > things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
> > > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
> > > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
> > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
> > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
> > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
> > > > > that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
> > > > > changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
> > > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
> > > > > years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
> > > > > instance and see how far that takes you.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets
> > > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the
> > > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain
> > > > unreviewed by anyone.
> > > 
> > > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care
> > > even less than your original group).  However it *is* a good argument
> > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of
> > > the patches.
> > > 
> > > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
> > > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
> > > > > ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
> > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the
> > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches.
> > > 
> > > Great.  Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the
> > > Acks you need on your remaining patches.
> > 
> > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe,
> > 
> > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed
> > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches
> > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added
> > what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of
> > times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and
> > somehow it seems like this set has lost traction.
> > 
> > Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more
> > eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain
> > unreviewed.
> 
> Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again).
> 
> This has been a common theme over the past few months.
> 
> Perhaps he has changed employer/project?

My work on PWM is purely done in my spare time. I don't get paid for any
of it. I currently have two kids that need home-schooling, as many
others probably do, and I have a full time job doing non-PWM related
things. As a result my spare time is close to nil these days.

I very much appreciate all the effort that others have spent in getting
this reviewed. I haven't been able to keep a very close eye on this, but
even the latest versions have some comments, so I didn't consider this
ready yet. If that's changed and everybody's okay with the changes, then
I can apply this to for-next. We haven't got all that much time left
before the merge window and I had hoped this would be ready earlier so
that we'd have more time for this in linux-next. But I'd be willing to
at least give it a try. If it starts to look like there are going to be
issues with this I can always back them out and we can have another go
next release.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists