On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > This patch adds the 'ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES' entry > in order to review and test the upcoming patches as a supporter. > I have developed the low-level devices and power related devices for > Exyno5433 and TM2/E board. > > Moreover, Andi proposed himself as a reviewer for Exynos5433 and TM2/E. > > Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com> > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@samsung.com> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index cfff2c9e3d94..96c055e8dd0b 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -1712,6 +1712,13 @@ F: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/samsung-sram.txt > F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/pd-samsung.txt > N: exynos > > +ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS5433 ARM ARCHITECTURES > +M: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com> > +R: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@samsung.com> > +L: linux-samsung-...@vger.kernel.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > +S: Supported > +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433* > +
Review and testing is always highly appreciated and you are doing, Chanwoo, great work. I would like to sincerely thank you for that. Samsung probably should thank you, as well. :) As for the additional sub-entry, I do not see any need for creating such entries for specific DTSes. This looks like overkill. At the same time I would like to strongly avoid something which is happening for example in our DRM where we have *four* maintainers but only *one* is responding. We can add bazilions of maintainers to satisfy Samsung KPIs but still this might not help reviewing patches (damn, why am I waiting with this small [0] thing since 21st of October?). On the other hand, this is just my personal opinion. If the broad open-source community would like to do any changes here (add/remove/move/whatever) I do not mind at all. Best regards and happy New Year! :D Krzysztof
