On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 03:09:54PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 15:08, Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 02:37:43PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:56 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And you could've included me in the Cc so I didn't just find it by > > > > > > accident. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it's time to add you to the MAINTAINERS for this file as a designated > > > > > reviewer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are patching my recent change that you yourself reviewed only days > > > > ago. I would think that you would Cc me whether I were a maintainer or > > > > not as I'm very likely to have relevant feedback. > > > > > > On that note: do you see yourself as a full GPIO reviewer or do you > > > prefer I split out the uAPI part into a separate section in > > > MAINTAINERS and nominate you as its maintainer? > > > > > > > Not sure I'm comfortable with either. > > > > Definitely not full GPIO. I don't feel sufficiently familiar with GPIO > > and the related subsystems to qualify. > > > > Splitting out cdev and the uAPI makes more sense to me, but in my mind at > > least even that requires a level of commitment higher than the rather > > spotty attention I've been providing recently. > > I'm more inclined to leave it as is. > > > > I can still split the uAPI files into their own section, make Linus > and myself maintainers and make you a reviewer, how about that? > That is closer to the reality, so that would work for me. Cheers, Kent.