Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] m25p80: initial verion

[Peter Maydell]

On 21 April 2012 06:44, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> MAINTAINERS file is newer than most devices, so many are still missing.
>
> I don't think that grouping devices with the TCG target is a good idea.
>
> My reasoning for adding the Zynq devices to the machine was that it
> seemed a natural fit - both were created by you and "belonged" to that
> one machine.

Yes, those cases are clear. The difficult ones are things like
for example the PL330 DMA controller that has been posted to the
list, which happens to be used first by the zynq but will also
be used by the exynos board and perhaps others later. I think
listing this kind of generic device under the board which happened
to first use it is misleading.

> Another discussion this touches on is how the status of a MAINTAINERS
> section is interpreted (my recent RFC series). Anthony has been
> advocating that S: Maintained means to him you should queue patches for
> that subsystem yourself rather than just sending/ack'ing patches on the
> list.
> How that interacts with TCG target maintenance is still somewhat of a
> gray zone, i.e. ARM devices, despite not strictly documented in
> MAINTAINERS, are in practice going through Peter as ARM maintainer for
> coordination.

Yes. I've been doing this because a lot of the ARM boards are in
the 'occasional fixes' state where they get patches sometimes but
don't have a continously active maintainer, so it's partly historical.
(I do also value the code-review gate that running these board patches
through me gives.) Would people prefer board maintainers to submit
direct pull requests?

-- PMM