Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <a838a627dd3308908c54f8d84d7fa9c56953b954.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: Convert to using %pOFn instead of
 device_node.name
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ian Arkver <ian.arkver.dev@gmail.com>,
        Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@gmail.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 04:41:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqL=+O=G-0uVdKGcq4T8pSzkdGV1sd_p682-6SFXuNt2mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180828154433.5693-1-robh@kernel.org>
         <20180828154433.5693-7-robh@kernel.org> <20180912121705.010a999d@coco.lan>
         <CAL_JsqK8B46x8bm_aYggJSPAWrMGZ1rZ58uWCmyiSqA2KZpiFg@mail.gmail.com>
         <c7a3263ac94a6c31bd58c06683d55015be2e8be4.camel@perches.com>
         <CAL_JsqL=+O=G-0uVdKGcq4T8pSzkdGV1sd_p682-6SFXuNt2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:26 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 15:26 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > A problem with MAINTAINERS is there is no way to tell who applies
> > > patches for a given path vs. anyone else listed.
> > 
> > try the --scm option
> 
> That kind of helps if the maintainer has listed a tree, but gives
> wrong results if not.

If there isn't a tree listed, it's not really maintained.

> And you still have to figure out who owns which
> tree. That's not hard, but it's not scriptable.

a get_maintainer scripted loop using
  --maxdepth=<incrementing_from_1> --scm --m --nor --nol
until a result could work.

> IMO, we should reserve 'M:' for maintainers with trees and use 'R:'
> driver maintainers. That's redefining M as "maintainer" rather than
> "mail patches to". You could still have both for a entry so you can
> know who to go bug when your patch hasn't been applied.

IMO, most M: entries in MAINTAINERS are either reviewers or
used-once when created and longer active or just vanity.