On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:20:21PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 10/27/2014 03:17 PM, 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?
The main intention of this patch is to be on CC in case of patches touching MIPI DSI bus. I do not want to create separate tree for such small subsystem.
So if such things are not allowed please drop the patch and sorry for the noise.
For that stuff you can just create a mail filter that shovels everything touching anything dsi related on dri-devel (people arleady should send all stuff there anyway) into a special folder/mark it as important. If you rely on people to always use get_maintainers.pl that won't work properly anyway.
So if all you want is to notice all dsi related patches then adding a maintainer entry isn't a good solution anyway. So best to drop this one. -Daniel