Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:03:54AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >On 4/10/2024 12:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:29:57 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>> If we are going to be trying to come up with some special status maybe >>>> it makes sense to have some status in the MAINTAINERS file that would >>>> indicate that this driver is exclusive to some organization and not >>>> publicly available so any maintenance would have to be proprietary. >>> >>> I like that idea. >> >> +1, also first idea that came to mind but I was too afraid >> of bike shedding to mention it :) Fingers crossed? :) >> > >+1, I think putting it in MAINTAINERS makes a lot of sense. Well, how exactly you imagine to do this? I have no problem using MAINTAINERS for this, I was thinking about that too, but I could not figure out the way it would work. Having driver directory is much more obvious, person cooking up a patch sees that immediatelly. Do you look at MAINTAINTERS file when you do some driver API changing patch/ any patch? I certainly don't (not counting get_maintainers sctipt).
