Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:45:46 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI/AEST: Initial AEST driver |
| |
Hi Darren,
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:39:23 +0000, Darren Hart <darren@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@arm.com> > > > M: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> > > > M: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > +R: Tyler Baicar <baicar@os.amperecomputing.com> > > > L: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > > L: linux-arm-kernel@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.
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.
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.
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |