On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:58:26AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:33:33PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Hi Lukas, > > > > I'm including Greg here in case I've done something wrong as a maintainer. > > Since I've only maintained Thunderbolt quite short time, it may be that > > I've done mistakes but certainly I did not deliberately try to make life of > > people developing this for older Apple systems harder. > > Greg did not yell at me (yet) so I guess I'm doing OK :)
I have not seen anything to complain about here, so why would I? :) > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 11:42:01PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > Andreas Noever has let it be known off-list already a while ago that he > > > currently cannot spare as much time for Thunderbolt development as he'd > > > like. As a result the driver's development has become dominated by > > > Intel. > > > > I was not aware of this. Althought Andreas has not commented much > > lately, I thought he is still looking after our changes. I hope he still > > is :) > > > > > I would like to step up as co-maintainer to provide additional checks > > > and balances and prevent the driver from degenerating into an Intel-only > > > show. A number of things really irk me: > > > > I don't have anything against this but at the same time I'm afraid it > > might lead to a situation where the Thunderbolt driver evolution gets > > stopped into its tracks because of unnecessary fighting over each patch > > and change which does not benefit Linux kernel in general. > > I think we have enough maintainers in this subsystem: > > Andreas - Apple hardware > Michael and me - Intel > Yehezkel - Microsoft > > But I think we can make you a dedicated reviewer. This should make sure > you get to review all the patches touching this subsystem. That would be good. But always remember, no one, not even a maintainer, is there as a "gatekeeper". Everyone can be routed around, or accidentally forgotten to be cc:ed or patches can come in from other subsystems as needed. So adding more reviewers is always great, but it's never a "requirement" that all people have to review everything before things are merged. > This is especially important when a random Intel (well, or Apple) > engineer submits a patch, say fixing a typo in a comment of some data > structure. There is no point starting to demand that the specific > register meaning needs to be disclosed. I've said this before but I or > any other Intel engineer do not have any power over when the spec is > released or any other related matter (like disclosing registers) and I > really don't want that every single patch review starts with demanding > people to disclose something extra. After all they are just trying to > improve the driver which is good for Linux. Well said, this is a tough area when dealing with both undocumented hardware combined with a spec that is not public. Everyone's trying to do their best so we should always assume that first. thanks, greg k-h
