Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752353AbdGaPRV (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:17:21 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-f67.google.com ([209.85.213.67]:38765 "EHLO mail-vk0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752059AbdGaPRT (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:17:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [209.133.79.7] In-Reply-To: <20170731130318.22976-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> References: <20170731130318.22976-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> From: Olof Johansson Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:17:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform: x86: ChromeOS ACPI To: Enric Balletbo i Serra Cc: Benson Leung , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , vbendeb@chromium.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 33 Hi, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > Dear all, > > The following series adds a ChromeOS ACPI device and export some values > reported by the ACPI in a sysfs directory. The patches comes from the > ChromeOS kernel and were originally created by Olof Johansson. These > are just a squashed version with few modifications. It might have received my authorship through rebases or moving the code, but it was originally implemented by Vadim Bendebury, cc:d here -- not by me. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/7dcefe33416d29c524b331ebcf696a8962fbc3cb > One doubt that I have is that I'm not sure if the chromeos_acpi driver > should reside in drivers/platform/x86/ or in drivers/platform/chrome. > Any preference on this? I have no preference, but original intent of drivers/platform/chrome was to not organize it by architecture and have both x86 and ARM there. Whether that still makes sense I'll leave up to current maintainers. Also, I see you refreshed copyright dates to 2017 on all contents, instead of using at least the original and current year. Seems a little odd to me -- the code clearly isn't all new and written this year. -Olof