[PATCH v3 0/5] AHCI and SATA PHY support for Broadcom STB SoCs
computersforpeace at gmail.com
Thu May 21 15:38:25 PDT 2015
I can explain part of this, but I'm curious if anyone else has different
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> But the rules have never been clear to me. If the subsystem
> maintainer is okay with it, I'm happy to take the patches. I'm just
> kinda curious why this doesn't go through devicetree tree while some
> other devicetree patches go through there.
AFAIK, there is no official tree for device tree bindings. There's just
a mailing list and several reviewers, who usually try to help on the big
picture binding review. Note that there's no tree listed in MAINTAINERS
OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS
But you will see several MAINTAINERS entries for different subdirs of
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/. Maybe you should add one for .../ata
if you're going to continue taking patches?
It's possible you're confusing binding documentation with .dts source
files? The DTS files (arch/*/boot/dts/) go through arch trees. For
instance, the arm-soc maintainers have a structured process by which
sub-architecture maintainers track .dts(i) file updates for their
boards/chips and filter them up to Arnd, Olof, etc., via their separate
'dts' branches. That's why Florian took patch 5 to his tree.
> Can somebody explain the
> overall policy to me? I'm not looking for some absolute rules and
> exceptions are fine but I do wanna have a general direction.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel