[PATCH] cpuidle: add maintainer entry

[Viresh Kumar]

On 25 April 2013 12:15, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 07:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

>> Shouldn't MAINTAINERS contain the driver maintainers too?
>
> It should contains the upstream maintainer for the subsystem, and
> optionally a co-maintainer.
>
> The MAINTAINERS file gives informations about the patch submission path.
>
> The file's header should contain the maintainer of the driver, so the
> submitted patches will go to the subsystem maintainer for upstreaming
> and to the driver maintainer for acked-by.
>
> If you add an entry in MAINTAINERS like:
>
> ARM/CALXEDA HIGHBANK ARCHITECTURE
> M:      Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
> L:      linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
> S:      Maintained
> F:      arch/arm/mach-highbank/
> +F:     drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-calxeda.c
>
> That will add confusion while we are trying to clarify the situation
> with a single entry point for the patches submission. If someone wants
> to submit a patch for this driver, it will look at the MAINTAINERS file
> and won't know if it should send the patch against arm-soc or linux-pm.

I though otherwise. We can add entry in MAINTAINERS for any module.
Module can be a framework/architecture or a single driver.

Adding entry for cpuidle driver of a architecture as you wrote for calxeda is
wrong as it adds to confusion and so there should be a separate entry for
this driver rather than merging it with arch/ entries.