Re: Can someone Ack and queue a patch for RTC subsytem?

[Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>]

Arnaud,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:34:09PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> I have a very simple driver (support for reading and setting the time)
> for a RTC chip (Intersil ISL 12057) but cannot find anyone to get it
> Acked and queued for v3.14. In v3.14, there should be at least three
> users of the driver (ReadyNAS 102, 104 and 2120) if I meet -rc5 cutoff
> for associated .dts changes.

The -rc5 cutoff isn't a hard line.  It's also mvebu-specific.  eg, We
need things _posted_ a week or so before arm-soc's cutoff of -rc6 so we
have time to get the pull request in.  If it needs to go through
mvebu/arm-soc, once it's posted, you're good.

The rtc driver shouldn't go through mvebu/arm-soc.  It should go through
the rtc maintainer's tree.

> I never heard of *listed* RTC maintainer during all the review process
> on rtc-linux list (v0 sent in october); I dug the list archives and when
> this previously happened, someone else (e.g. Andrew Morton) was kind
> enough to handle the patches:
> 
>   http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg292187.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Alessandro has been active for a
while and Andrew Morton has indeed been picking up the slack.  S-o-B's
confirm this.

I haven't worked with Andrew enough to know his workflow, but I imagine
he can take patches much closer to the merge window than we can.

> I wonder if someone (Andrew? Stephen? Jason?) would be kind enough to
> take care of the v6 I just sent [1].

I don't mind routing it though mvebu/arm-soc since the only consumers
are currently mvebu boards, but I'd like to hear from Andrew that this
is ok.

In the long term, should we seek out a co-maintainer for drivers/rtc?
Can anyone get a hold of Alessandro to get his opinion on this?

thx,

Jason.

> [1]: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/303616/