Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for TM16xx driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:35:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:33 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 8:40 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:29:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:52 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:08:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 7:31 PM Jean-François Lessard
> > > > > > > <jefflessard3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Besides the missing commit message, the main part of this patch should
> > > > > > > be merged with the patch 2 where the YAML file is being added.
> > > > > > > Otherwise it will be a dangling file. I dunno if DT tooling has its
> > > > > > > own concept of a maintainer database, though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > get_maintainer.pl will pull the maintainer out of the file, so it won't be
> > > > > > truly dangling without a way to associate Jean-François with this file, if
> > > > > > that;s what you mean.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's assume patch 2 is applied and patch 4 is not, what will be the
> > > > > result of get_maintainer.pl for the YAML file?
> > > >
> > > > Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:AUXILIARY DISPLAY DRIVERS)
> > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:AUXILIARY DISPLAY DRIVERS)
> > > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> > > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> > > > Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> > > > "Jean-François Lessard" <jefflessard3@xxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:471/471=100%,in file)
> > > >                                                                                                                     ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Which is a git lookup heuristics. If you disable that, there is no
> > > maintainer for the file. Try with --m and --no-git (IIRC the option
> > > name).
>
> Also, I think linewrap might done some fuckery cos it was the
> "in file" I was pointing to, pretty sure that's not coming from git.
> I tried ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit --nogit-fallback -f Documentation/devicetree/bindings/auxdisplay/titanmec,tm16xx.yaml
> (I think --nogit-fallback is the salient option, --nogit is a default
> actually) and I got:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:AUXILIARY DISPLAY DRIVERS)
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (reviewer:AUXILIARY DISPLAY DRIVERS)
> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> "Jean-François Lessard" <jefflessard3@xxxxxxxxx> (in file)
>                                                   ^^^^^^^
> and the in file still appears.

Cool, thanks for providing this, TIL! Is this documented somewhere? I
mean how should I know that YAML files are not orphaned by default
(assuming they are correct and have a "maintainer" field inside)?

> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS)
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
> AUXILIARY DISPLAY DRIVERS status: Odd Fixes
>
> > Actually doesn't checkpatch complain in this case?
>
> The usual warning about MAINTAINERS appears ye, the one that appears
> whenever a file is moved, created or deleted. I personally don't care
> about that, as long as the end result of a series deals with it since
> the file will produce the correct maintainer list in a bisection etc
> anyway. Of course, your subsystem your prerogative.

Shouldn't checkpatch also be fixed at least for that part as
get_maintainer does?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko