Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752764AbdCMJCC (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 05:02:02 -0400 Received: from lelnx194.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.80]:57713 "EHLO lelnx194.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753140AbdCMJBW (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 05:01:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] phy: samsung: move the Samsung specific phy files to "samsung" directory To: Vivek Gautam References: <20170309113311.15345-1-jh80.chung@samsung.com> <58C142F6.2030708@ti.com> <58C62C5F.4060307@ti.com> CC: Jaehoon Chung , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , , Sylwester Nawrocki , Javier Martinez Canillas , From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: <58C65FCF.4030207@ti.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:31:03 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1947 Lines: 52 Hi Vivek, On Monday 13 March 2017 02:27 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > Hi Kishon, > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sunday 12 March 2017 02:48 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>> Hi Kishon, >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Thursday 09 March 2017 05:03 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >>>>> Make the "samsung" directory and move the Samsung specific files to >>>>> there for maintaining the files relevant to Samsung. >>>> >>>> The number of phy drivers in drivers/phy is getting unmanageable. I think this >>>> is a good step to make it a little better. Can you also add a MAINTAINER for >>>> drivers/phy/samsung? >>> >>> I remember making a similar attempt in past [1], but that time we couldn't >>> reach an agreement as to whether group the phy drivers based on >>> vendors or based on the type of phy. >>> >>> If you are fine with grouping the drivers for each vendor, I hope you can >>> consider picking that patch (I can respin the patch based on linux-phy/next). >>> Other driver maintainers were also cool with that older patch. >> >> Sure, you can re-spin the patch. > > Thanks, will re-spin the patch. > >> >> At that point of time I didn't think grouping phy drivers for each vendor is >> required. But especially after [1] where I failed to notice an existing phy >> driver can be reused and later has to be reverted. This could have been easily >> identified by MAINTAINERS of that particular platform. That's why now I feel >> grouping phy drivers and having a MAINTAINER for every vendor directory will >> help to identify such issues. > > I will be able to update the MAINTAINERS file for the directory structure > change only, like I did in my earlier version. > We will have to ask each vendors to pull in vendors for each directory. That's fine. Eventually we'll get that added. Thanks Kishon