On 10/24/22 13:40, Joe Perches wrote: > 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" Yes. I am supporting this particular driver, assuming the support means ability and willingness to review and even occsionally test some changes - or to occasionally even discuss with the ASIC designers. Basically, what I don't do (and what in my head distinguishes me from "real" maintainers) is hosting the a public git tree. > there should be an individual listed as its actual maintainer, not > just a person that might review submitted patches. I don't think listing me as Maintainer or Reviewer will in practice change how I am looking after the code. I will get the patches/questions regarding the driver even if I am listed as a reviewer and not a as a maintainer, right? Besides, "a person that might review" is not any worse than "a person that might maintain"... I think there are quite a few MAINTAINER entries with 'M: <foo@bar>' who are absent these days. I would not value 'M' over 'R'. > > 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. Yes. And as I wrote, I am paid to look after this driver as well as other drivers I've submitted upstream for ROHM components (Kionix being part of ROHM these days). I have used this Supported + Reviewer combination for all other IC drivers as well. This is why, by definition, the S eg. supported is correct. Question is whether one supporting a driver must be a maintainer? If this is the case, then I'd better review all of my MAINTAINER entries. However, I (still) don't see the problem of having a reviewer supporting the IC. Yours -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
