[U-Boot] SoC specific driver changes through other custodian's trees?

[Reinhard Meyer]

Dear Wolfgang Denk,

> Dear Reinhard Meyer,
>
> In message<4D624A5E.30105 at emk-elektronik.de>  you wrote:
>>
>>> Please, provide a separate patch for changes in the OHCI drivers.
>>> They need to go to the u-boot-usb tree.
>> Apart from the fact that no change is required here..
>>
>> I don't think it would make sense to let ATMEL specific driver patches
>> (serial, net, usb, spi, etc.) go through different trees as long as they do
>> not change common files there (Makefile, general header files etc.).
>
> We split responsibilities (and repositories) by topics.  Indeed USB
> stuff should go through the USB repository. Similar, network stuff
> should go through the network tree. I2C stuff goes through the I2C
> repo, etc.
>
>> For the rework effort, it would separate changes to files that inherently must be
>> applied together, like changing header files in arch-at91/avr32 and the required
>> adaptions to the atmel drivers.
>
> Then your patches need to split in an orthogonal way.

I'm not sure what that means, but the rework effort won't work when not all
required changes are in one tree. And how would, for example, the NET
custodian verify a patch when it would not even build when the rework changes
to ATMEL header files are not in his tree?

On another note: If I am supposed to be responsible fot ATMEL stuff, that includes
IMHO also the drivers that are purely ATMEL specific.

>
>> It is natural, of course, that each custodian should have a look at the patch involving
>> their architecture or field and possibly add an "Acked-By:" to it.
>
> Just "having a look" is cartainly not sufficient.
>
Best regards,

Reinhard