[PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff device nodes for APM X-Gene platform

Olof Johansson olof at lixom.net
Wed Jul 22 10:52:01 PDT 2015


On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Loc Ho <lho at apm.com> wrote:
> Hi Olof,
>>> This patch set adds syscon reboot/poweroff device nodes to support reboot and
>>> poweroff features on X-Gene platform.
>>> Tai Nguyen (2):
>>>   power: reset: Add syscon reboot device node for APM X-Gene platform
>>>   power: reset: Add syscon poweroff device node for APM X-Gene Mustang platform
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-mustang.dts |   12 ++++++++++++
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-storm.dtsi  |   12 ++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>> Hi,
>> It's unclear to me what you want to happen to these patches. They are
>> sent to a long list of to-recipients, one of which is arm at kernel.org. In
>> general, specify the person you want to take action on the patch in to
>> with the rest on cc.
> Is there an owner for all DT node files? Is that Catalina as he is
> owner for ARM64 arch folder?

The ARM64 DT changes get merged through arm-soc, i.e. they get sent to
arm at kernel.org by the platform maintainers and picked up by us from
there (Arnd, Kevin or myself).

>> We generally ask that patches first go to the subarch maintainers,
>> and they in turn send it on to us (either through a pull request or
>> by sending the patches to be applied). In the case of X-Gene, there is
>> no general platform maintainer so we keep getting patches from various
>> engineers at APM and it's unclear to us what your intentions are.
>> I'd prefer to see one (to start with) person in charge of these (i.e. one
>> maintainer from the APM side). Please add that person to the MAINTAINERS
>> file as well.
> Are you suggesting that we have one person to start an GIT with
> kernel.org to keep all these misc ack'ed patches for X-Gene (APM) that
> don't seems to have an maintainer/home. Then request an pull by you?

Pull requests are convenient for us, but if it's just a patch or two,
sending them directly in email is fine as well.

What I want to avoid is a large number of people sending us patches
directly, which is why we ask for platform maintainers to coordinate
and aggregate patches to send on to us. That way we have one person
down the chain that we knows how we want the code delivered, and that
can do a round of reviews before we get it.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list