On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 07:24:54PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 05:16:50PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 06:12:28PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 04:53:34PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 05:12:07PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > > > Add bindings for OmniVision OV64A40. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jackson <lee.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > What does Lee's SoB indicate here? > > > > > > Lee has contributed to the development of the driver and validation of > > > bindings. > > > > Then you're missing a Co-developed-by: from Lee :) > > > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > > > index b19995690904..df089d68b58c 100644 > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > > > @@ -15821,6 +15821,13 @@ S: Maintained > > > > > T: git git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git > > > > > F: drivers/media/i2c/ov5695.c > > > > > > > > > > +OMNIVISION OV64A40 SENSOR DRIVER > > > > > +M: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > +L: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > +S: Maintained > > > > > +T: git git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git > > > > > > > > Binding looks fine to me, my question is here. Usually having a tree > > > > here means that you apply the patches yourself. Do you? > > > > > > > > > > No, and only Mauro has commit rights on the media tree. > > > > > > All i2c sensor drivers have a tree listed, regardless who commits > > > there. What should I put there ? > > > > IMO, nothing. The media tree entry should cover the parent directory, > > no? > > There's little documentation for the T: tag. In MAINTAINERS, we have > > T: *SCM* tree type and location. > Type is one of: git, hg, quilt, stgit, topgit > > which doesn't tell much. In Documentation/sbumitting-patches.rst, > there's ona additional paragraph: > > Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline > tree directly. Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and > want to see patches prepared against those trees. See the **T:** > entry for the subsystem in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or > simply ask the maintainer if the tree is not listed there. > > If the purpose of the T: tag is to tell which tree patches for this > driver should be developed against, the above tree seems right. No, it says 'T' would be in the subsystem entry, not the driver entry. It is somewhat frequently suggested to use 'T' entries as the way to find maintainers who apply patches vs. maintainers for a file. I would like something more explicit, but that's what we have ATM. Rob
