Hi Vivek, On Monday 13 March 2017 02:27 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi Kishon, > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kis...@ti.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sunday 12 March 2017 02:48 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>> Hi Kishon, >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kis...@ti.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Thursday 09 March 2017 05:03 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >>>>> Make the "samsung" directory and move the Samsung specific files to >>>>> there for maintaining the files relevant to Samsung. >>>> >>>> The number of phy drivers in drivers/phy is getting unmanageable. I think >>>> this >>>> is a good step to make it a little better. Can you also add a MAINTAINER >>>> for >>>> drivers/phy/samsung? >>> >>> I remember making a similar attempt in past [1], but that time we couldn't >>> reach an agreement as to whether group the phy drivers based on >>> vendors or based on the type of phy. >>> >>> If you are fine with grouping the drivers for each vendor, I hope you can >>> consider picking that patch (I can respin the patch based on >>> linux-phy/next). >>> Other driver maintainers were also cool with that older patch. >> >> Sure, you can re-spin the patch. > > Thanks, will re-spin the patch. > >> >> At that point of time I didn't think grouping phy drivers for each vendor is >> required. But especially after [1] where I failed to notice an existing phy >> driver can be reused and later has to be reverted. This could have been >> easily >> identified by MAINTAINERS of that particular platform. That's why now I feel >> grouping phy drivers and having a MAINTAINER for every vendor directory will >> help to identify such issues. > > I will be able to update the MAINTAINERS file for the directory structure > change only, like I did in my earlier version. > We will have to ask each vendors to pull in vendors for each directory.
That's fine. Eventually we'll get that added. Thanks Kishon
