On Mon 26 November 2012 00:18:30 Alexey Klimov wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Hans Verkuil hverkuil@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On Mon November 12 2012 19:41:57 Alexey Klimov wrote:
Hi Mauro, Hans, all,
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@redhat.com wrote:
Em Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:47:49 +0100 Hans Verkuil hverkuil@xs4all.nl escreveu:
On Fri November 2 2012 14:13:10 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:12:44 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@redhat.com escreveu:
> Em Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:44:50 +0100 > Hans Verkuil hverkuil@xs4all.nl escreveu: > > > On Thu October 25 2012 19:27:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Hi Hans, > > > > > > Em Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:35:56 +0200 > > > Hans Verkuil hverkuil@xs4all.nl escreveu: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > This is the tentative agenda for the media workshop on November 8, 2012. > > > > If you have additional things that you want to discuss, or something is wrong > > > > or incomplete in this list, please let me know so I can update the list. > > > > > > Thank you for taking care of it. > > > > > > > - Explain current merging process (Mauro) > > > > - Open floor for discussions on how to improve it (Mauro) > > > > - Write down minimum requirements for new V4L2 (and DVB?) drivers, both for > > > > staging and mainline acceptance: which frameworks to use, v4l2-compliance, > > > > etc. (Hans Verkuil) > > > > - V4L2 ambiguities (Hans Verkuil) > > > > - TSMux device (a mux rather than a demux): Alain Volmat > > > > - dmabuf status, esp. with regards to being able to test (Mauro/Samsung) > > > > - Device tree support (Guennadi, not known yet whether this topic is needed) > > > > - Creating/selecting contexts for hardware that supports this (Samsung, only > > > > if time is available) > > > > > > I have an extra theme for discussions there: what should we do with the drivers > > > that don't have any MAINTAINERS entry. > > > > I've added this topic to the list. > > Thanks! > > > > It probably makes sense to mark them as "Orphan" (or, at least, have some > > > criteria to mark them as such). Perhaps before doing that, we could try > > > to see if are there any developer at the community with time and patience > > > to handle them. > > > > > > This could of course be handled as part of the discussions about how to improve > > > the merge process, but I suspect that this could generate enough discussions > > > to be handled as a separate theme. > > > > Do we have a 'Maintainer-Light' category? I have a lot of hardware that I can > > test. So while I wouldn't like to be marked as 'The Maintainer of driver X' > > (since I simply don't have the time for that), I wouldn't mind being marked as > > someone who can at least test patches if needed. > > There are several "maintainance" status there: > > S: Status, one of the following: > Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. > Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. > Odd Fixes: It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do > much other than throw the odd patch in. See below.. > Orphan: No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the > role as you write your new code]. > Obsolete: Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means > it has been replaced by a better system and you > should be using that. > > (btw, I just realized that I should be changing the EDAC drivers I maintain > to Supported; the media drivers I maintain should be kept as Maintained). > > I suspect that the "maintainer-light" category for those radio and similar > old stuff is likely "Odd Fixes". > > > > There are some issues by not having a MAINTAINERS entry: > > > - patches may not flow into the driver maintainer; > > > - patches will likely be applied without tests/reviews or may > > > stay for a long time queued; > > > - ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl at --no-git-fallback won't return > > > any maintainer[1]. > > > > > > [1] Letting get_maintainer.pl is very time/CPU consuming. Letting it would > > > delay a lot the patch review process, if applied for every patch, with > > > unreliable and doubtful results. I don't do it, due to the large volume > > > of patches, and because the 'other' results aren't typically the driver > > > maintainer. > > > > > > An example of this is the results for a patch I just applied > > > (changeset 2866aed103b915ca8ba0ff76d5790caea4e62ced): > > > > > > $ git show --pretty=email|./scripts/get_maintainer.pl > > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@infradead.org (maintainer:MEDIA INPUT INFRA...,commit_signer:7/7=100%) > > > Hans Verkuil hans.verkuil@cisco.com (commit_signer:4/7=57%) > > > Anatolij Gustschin agust@denx.de (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > > Wei Yongjun yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > > Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com (commit_signer:1/7=14%) > > > linux-media@vger.kernel.org (open list:MEDIA INPUT INFRA...) > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) > > > > > > According with this driver's copyrights: > > > > > > * Copyright 2008-2010 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > > * > > > * Freescale VIU video driver > > > * > > > * Authors: Hongjun Chen hong-jun.chen@freescale.com > > > * Porting to 2.6.35 by DENX Software Engineering, > > > * Anatolij Gustschin agust@denx.de > > > > > > The driver author (Hongjun Chen hong-jun.chen@freescale.com) was not even > > > shown there, and the co-author got only 15% hit, while I got 100% and Hans > > > got 57%. > > > > > > This happens not only to this driver. In a matter of fact, on most cases where > > > no MAINTAINERS entry exist, the driver's author gets a very small hit chance, > > > as, on several of those drivers, the author doesn't post anything else but > > > the initial patch series. > > > > We probably need to have an entry for all the media drivers, even if it just > > points to the linux-media mailinglist as being the 'collective default maintainer'. > > Yes, I think that all media drivers should be there. I prefer to tag the ones > that nobody sends us a MAINTAINERS entry with "Orphan", as this tag indicates > that help is wanted.
I wrote a small shell script to see what's missing, using the analyze_build.pl script at media-build devel_scripts dir:
DIR=$(dirname $0) $DIR/analyze_build.pl --path drivers/media/ --show_files_per_module >/tmp/all_drivers grep drivers/media/ MAINTAINERS | perl -ne 's/F:\s+//;s,drivers/media/,,; print $_ if (!/^\n/)' >maintained grep -v -f maintained /tmp/all_drivers |grep -v -e keymaps -e v4l2-core/ -e dvb-core/ -e media.ko -e rc-core.ko -e ^#| sort >without_maintI excluded the core files from the list, as they don't need any specific entry. RC keymaps is also a special case, as I don't think any maintainer is needed for them.
Basically, analyze_build.pl says that there are 613 drivers under drivers/media. The above script shows 348 drivers without an explicit maintainer. So, only 43% of the drivers have a formal maintainer.
Yet, on the list below, I think several of them can be easily tagged as "Odd fixes", like cx88 and saa7134.
I think I'll send today a few RFC MAINTAINERS patches for some stuff below that I can myself be added as "Odd fixes". Yet, I would very much prefer if someone with more time than me could be taking over the "Odd fixes" patches I'll propose.
Regards, Mauro
These two are 'Supported' by me:
i2c/ad9389b.ko = i2c/ad9389b.c i2c/adv7604.ko = i2c/adv7604.c
These are 'Maintained' by me:
i2c/cx2341x.ko = i2c/cx2341x.c parport/bw-qcam.ko = parport/bw-qcam.c parport/c-qcam.ko = parport/c-qcam.c radio/dsbr100.ko = radio/dsbr100.c radio/radio-cadet.ko = radio/radio-cadet.c radio/radio-isa.ko = radio/radio-isa.c radio/radio-keene.ko = radio/radio-keene.c
OK. Could you please send patches for those? I think that the better is to write one patch by each MAINTAINERS entry (except, of course, if there are consecutive entries), as I suspect that MAINTAINERS is likely one of top-rated merge-conflicts file.
There are more radio drivers that can have that status, but I would need to check that when I'm back in Oslo.
I can do 'Odd fixes' for the following:
i2c/cx25840/cx25840.ko = i2c/cx25840/cx25840-core.c i2c/cx25840/cx25840-audio.c i2c/cx25840/cx25840-firmware.c i2c/cx25840/cx25840-vbi.c i2c/cx25840/cx25840-ir.c i2c/m52790.ko = i2c/m52790.c i2c/msp3400.ko = i2c/msp3400-driver.c i2c/msp3400-kthreads.c i2c/saa6588.ko = i2c/saa6588.c i2c/saa7110.ko = i2c/saa7110.c i2c/saa7115.ko = i2c/saa7115.c i2c/saa7127.ko = i2c/saa7127.c i2c/saa717x.ko = i2c/saa717x.c i2c/tda7432.ko = i2c/tda7432.c i2c/tda9840.ko = i2c/tda9840.c i2c/tea6415c.ko = i2c/tea6415c.c i2c/tea6420.ko = i2c/tea6420.c i2c/tvaudio.ko = i2c/tvaudio.c i2c/tveeprom.ko = i2c/tveeprom.c
i2c/tvp5150.ko = i2c/tvp5150.c
While I don't mind if you want to do odd fixes for this device, I think I can maintain this one, as the "default" device I use for random tests has this chipset (HVR-950), and I wrote this driver.
i2c/wm8739.ko = i2c/wm8739.c i2c/wm8775.ko = i2c/wm8775.c parport/pms.ko = parport/pms.c platform/vivi.ko = platform/vivi.c radio/radio-aimslab.ko = radio/radio-aimslab.c radio/radio-gemtek.ko = radio/radio-gemtek.c radio/radio-maxiradio.ko = radio/radio-maxiradio.c radio/radio-miropcm20.ko = radio/radio-miropcm20.c radio/radio-mr800.ko = radio/radio-mr800.c radio/radio-rtrack2.ko = radio/radio-rtrack2.c radio/radio-si4713.ko = radio/radio-si4713.c
usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-alsa.ko = usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-audio.c usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-dvb.ko = usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-dvb.c usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-input.ko = usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-input.c usb/cx231xx/cx231xx.ko = +
I think we should check if the driver author is not interested on taking maintainership for this one, before putting it on Odd fixes status.
I'm very sorry for long silence but i'm ready to take maintainership for radio-mr800. By the way, i think that only fixes will be present for this driver in the future.
Is it possible for driver to have two maintainers or for example one person marked as maintainer and another one marked as "odd fixes" ? I mean i'm interested to be in c/c regarding all email, news, interesting patches for radio-mr800, dsbr100 and usb radio part of si470x but i don't know how to mark it that i want to help with these drivers. I have only dsbr100, mr800 and kworld fm700 (based on si470x) usb radios and i'm ready to test any patches and help as much as i can.
I saw that you made a MAINTAINERS entry for radio-mr800, but not for dsbr100 or si470x. Do you want to be the maintainer for those two, or shall I add myself as the 'Odd Fixes' entry? I have hardware for both.
About si470x. It consists of two parts (usb and i2c interfaces) if i remember correctly. I have kworld fm700 usb radio only. I saw platforms with radio-si470x-i2c but never had chances to play with it. May be it's also better to ask Tobias and Joonyoung Shim. I don't think that i'm ready to maintain si470x driver but i'll be happy to be up to date with any changes and discussions about all usb radio drivers.
I'm happy to maintain the usb part and do odd-fixes for the i2c part for this driver...
I have usb gemtek radio 21 (dsbr100) and i'm ready to maintain it. I can prepare patch. Also i think that only fixes and corrections will be present for this driver in future.
...and if you can maintain this driver, then we've split it up nicely.
Is that OK with you?
I don't have usb radio for radio-keene.c driver but i probably will take a look how to buy it here..
I wrote the driver for that one, so I'll be the maintainer for this driver (I'm preparing MAINTAINERS patches as I write this).
Oh, i never mean to take maintainership on keene radio (you're the author) :) I just thought how to buy it.
It's hard to get outside the UK. I had to use a forwarding service to get mine from amazon.co.uk.
Regards,
Hans