Hi Sam, On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:02 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jagan. > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:50:44PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:28 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:40:03PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > The feiyang,fy07024di26a30d.txt and sitronix,st7701.txt has been > > > > converted to YAML schemas, update MAINTAINERS to match them again. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The patch is fine. > > > I just dislike we repeat the maintainer info in two places.. > > > > Since these are two different panels. and entry similar like other > > panels.do you look for single entry for both the panels? > My comment was related to the fact that we have maintainer entry in the > .yaml file, and in MAINTAINERS. > > Seems a waste to have a distributed and a centralized place for this. > So patches are fine in this respect. > And merging the two bindings would be very bad, they are not alike. Seems to be a valid point considering the redundant entry in two places, but the idea of maintainer entry in binding vs MAINTAINER file may be different in terms of usage, and knowing to public. the later part is pretty generic for people to know, and checkpatch to find. I may not be sure, but some experts can help here. Jagan.
