[PATCH] cpuidle: add maintainer entry

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 08:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> 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.
>
> IMO, there are too much drivers for that. It is simpler for someone to
> read the MAINTAINERS file to find the cpuidle drivers goes through
> linux-pm. I think we can trust Rafael to ask for the acked-by from the
> maintainer of the driver before taking the patches.

It not a maintainer's job to solicit acks. It is the submitter's job
to Cc the correct people. The maintainer should only check for
necessary CC/acks and bitch at the submitter if they did not use
get_maintainers.pl.

Perhaps the MAINTAINERS file needs to be distributed to scale better
or we need a way to put the maintainer data into the source and be
usable by get_maintainers.pl.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, actually it was an example to show the confusion we could be facing.

I'm confused about what is the confusion...

Rob