On 25 April 2013 12:15, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/24/2013 07:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
Shouldn't MAINTAINERS contain the driver maintainers too?
It should contains the upstream maintainer for the subsystem, and optionally a co-maintainer.
The MAINTAINERS file gives informations about the patch submission path.
The file's header should contain the maintainer of the driver, so the submitted patches will go to the subsystem maintainer for upstreaming and to the driver maintainer for acked-by.
If you add an entry in MAINTAINERS like:
ARM/CALXEDA HIGHBANK ARCHITECTURE M: Rob Herring rob.herring@calxeda.com L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) S: Maintained F: arch/arm/mach-highbank/ +F: drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-calxeda.c
That will add confusion while we are trying to clarify the situation with a single entry point for the patches submission. If someone wants to submit a patch for this driver, it will look at the MAINTAINERS file and won't know if it should send the patch against arm-soc or linux-pm.
I though otherwise. We can add entry in MAINTAINERS for any module. Module can be a framework/architecture or a single driver.
Adding entry for cpuidle driver of a architecture as you wrote for calxeda is wrong as it adds to confusion and so there should be a separate entry for this driver rather than merging it with arch/ entries.