Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer

[Fu Wei]

Hi Rafael,

On 7 July 2016 at 21:58, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 07, 2016 02:40:23 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> [+Sudeep]
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > >> So is this a documentation issue in which case Fu Wei can add that to
>> > > >> the file to explain its limited to ARM64. Or we could even rename the
>> > > >> file acpi_arm64_gtdt.c
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It seems a pity as the comment on this series were minors to block
>> > > >> things on a filename/location.
>> > > >
>> > > > Let me repeat what I said above:
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm mostly concerned about how (and by whom) that code is going to be
>> > > > maintained going forward.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is not about documentation, it is about responsibility.
>> > > >
>> > > > Honestly, I don't think I'm the right maintainer to apply the patch
>> > > > introducing this code and then handle bug reports regarding it and so
>> > > > on.  That has to be done by somebody else.
>> > >
>> > > I'm working on ACPI for years and upstreamed the ARM64 ACPI core
>> > > support (with lots of people's help), I'm willing to maintain the ARM64
>> > > ACPI code under drivers/acpi/ if no objections.
>> >
>> > OK
>>
>> I would ask you please to add Sudeep and myself for the ARM64 specific
>> ACPI code maintainership too.
>
> OK

For this, it seems we have a decision now, so I will post  v7 tomorrow
following this decision:
drivers/acpi/arm64/acpi_gtdt.c

I think that is a very good idea, I also believe Hanjun can maintain it well.

>
>> > Can the ARM64-specific code go under drivers/acpi/arm64/ then, for clarity?
>>
>> It can, but I do not understand why x86 should not have a separate
>> directory for all x86 specific stuff too then.
>
> It should. :-)
>
> It doesn't have it ATM, but that doesn't mean it's all OK.
>
> Well, some of the x86-specific stuff goes into arch/x86/kernel/acpi/, so it
> has something at least.
>
> In any case, IMO, if some code is only used by one architecture, it should be
> clear that this is the case, and moving that code into a separate directory
> helps to achieve that.
>
>> Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some
>> sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above.
>
> To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do that,
> but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen.  That may be
> one person or all of you, whatever you decide.
>
> I can take pull requests too if that's more convenient.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat