Add maintainer entry for ROHM/Kionix KX022A accelerometer sensor driver.
Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <[email protected]>
---
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 <[email protected]>
+S: Supported
+F: drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a*
+
KMEMLEAK
M: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
S: Maintained
--
2.37.3
--
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND
~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~
Simon says - in Latin please.
~~~ "non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit ~~~
Thanks to Simon Glass for the translation =]
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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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 <[email protected]>
> +S: Supported
> +F: drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a*
How is this "S: Supported" without an M: maintainer?
> +
> KMEMLEAK
> M: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> S: Maintained
> --
> 2.37.3
>
>
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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> +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/[email protected]/
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 :]
Yours
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
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 <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > +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/[email protected]/
>
> 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.
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 <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>> +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/[email protected]/
>>
>> 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! ~~
On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 10:56 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 10/24/22 13:40, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> >
> > 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.
Please do not conflate a "reviewer", someone that "might" look at
a patch and offer comments, and a "supporter", someone that actively
supports the driver/subsystem. I don't have a tree that is pulled
yet I am the get_maintainer and checkpatch maintainer.
On 10/24/22 14:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 10:56 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>> On 10/24/22 13:40, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Please do not conflate a "reviewer", someone that "might" look at
> a patch and offer comments, and a "supporter", someone that actively
> supports the driver/subsystem. I don't have a tree that is pulled
> yet I am the get_maintainer and checkpatch maintainer.
I'd like to ask what the "actively support a driver" means in practice
as I am pretty sure that is what I do. So perhaps I should change myself
from a reviewer to a maintainer for these drivers then.
Yours
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~