[PATCH 00/14] Introduce PECI subsystem

Dan Williams dan.j.williams at intel.com
Fri Jul 16 05:34:58 AEST 2021

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:33 AM Winiarska, Iwona
<iwona.winiarska at intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 16:51 +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 00:04 +0200, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > > Note: All changes to arch/x86 are contained within patches 01-02.
> >
> > Hi Iwona,
> >
> > One meta question first, who is this submission "To:"? Is there an
> > existing upstream maintainer path for OpenBMC changes? Are you
> > expecting contributions to this subsystem from others? While Greg
> > sometimes ends up as default maintainer for new stuff, I wonder if
> > someone from the OpenBMC commnuity should step up to fill this role?
> >
> The intention was to direct it to Greg, but I guess I didn't express
> that through the mail headers.

Usually something like a "Hey Greg, please consider applying..." in
the cover letter lets people know who the upstream path is for the

> I am expecting contributions - for example there is at least one other
> major BMC vendor which also ships PECI controllers.

You're expecting to take patches from them and you'll forward them to
Greg, or they'll go to Greg directly?

> From my perspective, the pieces that make up a BMC are pretty loosely
> connected (at least from the kernel perspective - scattered all over
> the kernel tree), so I don't see how that would work in practice.

No worries, Greg continues to scale more than other mere mortals for
these kinds of things. I was more asking because it was not clear from
these patches, nor MAINTAINERS, and it's healthy for Linux to grow new
patch wranglers from time to time.

More information about the openbmc mailing list