On 11/18/2016 08:31 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: > Hi Florian, > > On 18-11-2016 14:53, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On November 18, 2016 4:28:30 AM PST, Joao Pinto <joao.pi...@synopsys.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> My name is Joao Pinto and I work at Synopsys. >>> I am a kernel developer with special focus in mainline collaboration, >>> both Linux >>> and Buildroot. I was recently named one of the maintainers of the PCIe >>> Designware core driver and I was the author of the Designware UFS >>> driver stack. >>> >>> I am sending you this e-mail because you were the suggested contacts >> >from the >>> get_maintainers script concerning Ethernet drivers :). >>> >>> Currently I have the task to work on the mainline Ethernet QoS driver >>> in which >>> you are the author. The work would consist of the following: >>> >>> a) Separate the current driver in a Core driver (common ops) + platform >>> glue >>> driver + pci glue driver >>> b) Add features that are currently only available internally >>> c) Add specific phy support using the PHY framework >>> >>> I would also gladly be available to be its maintainer if you agree with >>> it. >> >> Since you have both the hardware and a clear todo list for this driver, >> start submitting patches, get them included in David's tree and over time >> chances are that you will become the maintainer, either explicitly by adding >> an entry in the MAINTAINERS file or just by consistently contributing to >> this area. > > Thanks for the feedback. > > So I found 2 suitable git trees: > a) kernel/git/davem/net.git > b) kernel/git/davem/net-next.git > > We should submit to net.git correct? The net-next.git is a tree with selected > patches for upstream only?
net-next.git is the git tree where new features/enhancements can be submitted, while net.git is for bug fixes. Unless you absolutely need to, it is common practice to avoid having changes in net-next.git depend on net.git and vice versa. Hope this helps. -- Florian
