Re: [PATCH v36 17/17] target/avr: Update MAINTAINERS file

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:49:40AM +0100, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
> On Sunday, November 24, 2019, Michael Rolnik <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Include AVR maintaners in MAINTAINERS file
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Rolnik <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 5e5e3e52d6..ad2d9dd04a 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -163,6 +163,15 @@ S: Maintained
> >  F: hw/arm/smmu*
> >  F: include/hw/arm/smmu*
> >
> > +AVR TCG CPUs
> > +M: Michael Rolnik <address@hidden>
> > +S: Maintained
> > +F: target/avr/
> > +F: hw/misc/avr_mask.c
> > +F: hw/char/avr_usart.c
> > +F: hw/timer/avr_timer16.c
> > +F: hw/avr/
> > +
> 
> 
> If Cleber and Eduardo don't object, please add file:
> 
> tests/acceptance/machine_avr6.py
> 
> to the list. This means that the file would have a sort of "dual"
> maintainrship: Cleber and Eduardo would take care of Python/Avocado/test
> harness aspects, while you and Sarah would take care of AVR aspects.

No objections.  Thanks!

> 
> Cleber and Eduardo, please note that AVR target will be significantly
> different than others, since these CPUs are not meant to work with Linux
> kernel, and there are other idiosyncracies where AVR folks would be really
> needed. There is also a case of MIPS-specific Avocado test where, at least
> from my point of view, dual maintainership worked well, so I think this one
> would work well too.
> 
> With or without that file addition:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Aleksandar Markovic <address@hidden>

-- 
Eduardo