Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1190137 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff  device nodes for APM X-Gene platform Loc Ho <lho@apm.com> - 2015-07-22 19:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff  device nodes for APM X-Gene platform Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2015-07-22 20:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff  device nodes for APM X-Gene platform Duc Dang <dhdang@apm.com> - 2015-07-25 20:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff  device nodes for APM X-Gene platform Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2015-07-26 21:00 +0200

#1190137 — Re: [PATCH 0/2 RESEND] power: reset: Add syscon reboot/poweroff device nodes for APM X-Gene platform

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@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?

>
> 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?

Thanks,
Loc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1190149

Hi,


On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Loc Ho <lho@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@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@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.


Thanks!


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1192418

Hi Olof,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Loc Ho <lho@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@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@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.
>>
>> If there is an chance in pulling this power off/reset patches for
>> 4.2-rc4, can you pull in as patches? Otherwise, we will go the GIT
>> pull request.
>
> We can definitely pick them up and queue them for 4.3 (see below). We
> normally want the bulk of patches before -rc4/5, but we take smaller
> updates closer to the merge window 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.
>>
>> We will get an GIT setup up for this and Duc Dang will contact you for
>> pull request when ready.

We are debating whether we should setup a company server (where we can
have full control about storage, user permissions, backup, ...) or
just use github.com to host our X-Gene kernel tree.

Github seems already provide everything we need for a public source
tree. Per your experience, what is your (and probably other
maintainers) reference in git hosting server? Is there any
inconvenience or difficulty for the maintainers to pull/merge code
from Github versus from a company server?

Thanks!
>
> Ok, sounds good. If you have people in the bay area that need PGP keys
> signed for this, I'd be happy to help.
>
> As far as the current DT patches, there's been several sent by
> different people. Please aggregate them into one patch series and send
> that (as git send-email is fine) to us to queue for 4.3.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> -Olof

-- 
Duc Dang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1192540

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:34:42AM -0700, Duc Dang wrote:
> Hi Olof,
> 
> We are debating whether we should setup a company server (where we can
> have full control about storage, user permissions, backup, ...) or
> just use github.com to host our X-Gene kernel tree.
> 
> Github seems already provide everything we need for a public source
> tree. Per your experience, what is your (and probably other
> maintainers) reference in git hosting server? Is there any
> inconvenience or difficulty for the maintainers to pull/merge code
> from Github versus from a company server?

Hosting on github is fine with us in general. We do prefer to get
signed pull requests in particular when they come from other sources
than kernel.org, mostly because there's another third party involved in
hosting the repo and by using signed tags there's less room for anyone
to do bad stuff with the repository without someone noticing.

If you host on github, please still use native git pull requests and not the
ones that github provides via the web interface.

Note however, that given the total volume of patches there's no strong need for
you to have a public repo just to send code to us -- we're happy applying
patches at the volumes we're currently looking at. I can imagine other reasons
for why you would like to have a public repo though.


Thanks,

-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web