On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 07:24 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On 10/24/22 09:52, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 14:23 +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > Add maintainer entry for ROHM/Kionix KX022A accelerometer sensor driver. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > index cf0f18502372..3ab9c5f97dfe 100644 > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > @@ -11435,6 +11435,11 @@ F: drivers/mfd/khadas-mcu.c > > > F: include/linux/mfd/khadas-mcu.h > > > F: drivers/thermal/khadas_mcu_fan.c > > > > > > +KIONIX/ROHM KX022A ACCELEROMETER > > > +R: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > > > +S: Supported > > > +F: drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a* > > > > How is this "S: Supported" without an M: maintainer? > > I am currently paid to work with the Kionix/ROHM upstream drivers. Hence > I add 'S:' to ones I am looking after. > > The ideology why I have 'R' and not 'M' is summarized by my earlier patch: > > >> I can also add myself as a maintainer instead of a reviewer if it better > >> suits iio maintainer. I however don't plan setting up my own public > >> repository and hope the further patches will be merged via IIO tree. > >> > >> So, as Geert once explained to me - In that case the difference between > >> me as a maintainer vs. a reviewer would be only really relevant to the > >> subsystem (in this case IIO) maintainer. The subsystem maintainer who > >> merges patches is allowed to take in changes acked by downstream > >> maintainer w/o obligation to do thorough review. (Downstream > maintainer is > >> to be blamed if things explode :]). If ack is given by a reviewer, then > >> the subsystem maintainer has the full responsibility and should always > >> do the review. Or - this is how I remember our discussion went - feel > >> free to correct me if I am wrong :] In any case - please let me know if > >> you'd rather see M: not R: in front of my name for the kx022a. > > This seemed to be fine with Jonathan: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/87ac9a5e-b5ba-82f3-c00c-75d5e6f01597@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I've also written a longer version of this in an LinkedIn article: > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-you-linux-kernel-maintainer-matti-vaittinen/ > > (I enjoy writing small stories. So doing an occasional small LinkedIn > articles on working with the upstream is kind of an hobby for me.) > > Anyways, I don't see a contradiction with 'S + R' compared to 'S + M'. > Well, please educate me if I am wrong :] The subsystem is one thing, someone outside of KIONIX/ROHM may be supporting the subsystem. If this _particular_ driver is "supported" there should be an individual listed as its actual maintainer, not just a person that might review submitted patches. S: *Status*, one of the following: Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. "this" is this particular driver, not any subsystem "above" it.
