Re: [PATCH 1/5] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for MIPI DSI bus

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 03:17:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:48:26AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index dd31933..476679c 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -3071,6 +3071,13 @@ F:	drivers/gpu/vga/
> >  F:	include/drm/
> >  F:	include/uapi/drm/
> >  
> > +DRM MIPI DSI BUS
> > +M:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
> > +L:	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > +S:	Supported
> > +F:	drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
> > +F:	include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h
> 
> I really prefer when common infrastructure like this doesn't get
> maintainer by a vendor. And I care with my intel hat on since we also ahve
> a dsi driver that sooner or later needs to be converted to to this stuff.
> 
> Why doesn't the usual model of merging stuff through Dave's tree, or if
> that doesn't work well due to patch depencies, through vendor trees with
> Dave's ack?

FWIW, I've merged DSI changes through the panel tree in the past after
discussing it with Dave on IRC. It seemed like a good fit and it was
most relevant for panels anyway. Given that I had expected that Dave
would give it a closer look before pulling than any of the vendor trees
anyway, so it would be as good as an explicit Acked-by anyway.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]