[PATCH 1/2] ACPI/AEST: Initial AEST driver

[Tyler Baicar]

-Moved ACPI for ARM64 maintainers to "to:"

Hi Marc, Darren,

On 11/30/2021 11:41 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:45:46AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Darren,
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:39:23 +0000,
>> Darren Hart <darren at os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:09:14PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 17:07:07 +0000,
>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> index 5250298d2817..aa0483726606 100644
>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ ACPI FOR ARM64 (ACPI/arm64)
>>>>>   M:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com>
>>>>>   M:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun at huawei.com>
>>>>>   M:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>>>>> +R:	Tyler Baicar <baicar at os.amperecomputing.com>
>>>>>   L:	linux-acpi at vger.kernel.org
>>>>>   L:	linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
>>>>>   S:	Maintained
>>>> Isn't this a bit premature? This isn't even mentioned in the commit
>>>> message, only in passing in the cover letter.
>>>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> This was something I encouraged Tyler to add during internal review,
>>> both in response to the checkpatch.pl warning about adding new drivers
>>> as well as our interest in reviewing any future changes to the aest
>>> driver. Since refactoring is common, this level made sense to me - but
>>> would it be preferable to add a new entry for just the new driver Tyler
>>> added?
>> Adding someone as the co-maintainer/co-reviewer of a whole subsystem
>> (ACPI/arm64 in this case) comes, IMO, with a number of pre-requisites:
>> has the proposed co-{maintainer,reviewer} contributed and/or reviewed
>> a significant number of patches to that subsystem and/or actively
>> participated in the public discussions on the design and the
>> maintenance of the subsystem, so that their reviewing is authoritative
>> enough? I won't be judge of this, but it is definitely something to
>> consider.
> Hi Marc,
>
> Agreed. I applied similar criteria when considering sub maintainers for
> the platform/x86 subsystem while I maintained it.
>
>> I don't think preemptively adding someone to the MAINTAINERS entry to
>> indicate an interest in a whole subsystem is the right way to do it.
>> One could argue that this is what a mailing list is for! ;-) On the
>> other hand, an active participation to the review process is the
>> perfect way to engage with fellow developers and to grow a profile. It
>> is at this stage that adding oneself as an upstream reviewer makes a
>> lot of sense.
> Also generally agree. In this specific case, our interest was in the
> driver itself, and we had to decide between the whole subsystem or
> adding another F: entry in MAINTAINERS for the specific driver. Since
> drivers/acpi/arm64 only has 3 .c files in it, adding another entry
> seemed premature and overly granular. Certainly a subjective thing and
> we have no objection to adding the extra line if that's preferred. This
> should have been noted in the commit message.

Thank you for the feedback here, I will make sure to add this to the 
commit message and cover letter in the next version.

Hi Lorenzo, Hanjun, Sudeep,

As for adding myself as a reviewer under ACPI for ARM64 or adding 
another F: entry, do you have a preference or guidance on what I should 
do here?

Thanks,

Tyler

>> Alternatively, adding a MAINTAINERS entry for a specific driver is
>> definitely helpful and will certainly result in the listed maintainer
>> to be Cc'd on changes affecting it. But I would really like this
>> maintainer to actively engage with upstream, rather than simply be on
>> the receiving end of a stream of changes.
> Agree for subsystems. For individual drivers, I think having the author
> as a reviewer is appropriate and should result in more patch reviews,
> which moves us in the direction of more community participation which we
> all want to see.
>
> Thanks,