Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: iio: proximity: Add Lidar-lite-v2

[Rodrigo Gobbi]

> 
> Also, I`m quoting the driver author about this binding due the maintainer ref for it.
> 
> Dear @Matt Ranostay, I`ve noticed you were the original driver author.
> During the discussion about adding lidar-v3 as trivial [1], we noticed that
> this HW is not actually a trivial due other pins like power-enable
> and mode control. We are considering moving v2 and v3 (which was not documented)
> out of trivial and this is what this patch is trying to do. 
> Also, we need a maintainer for the binding file and I`ve quoted you there.
> I would appreciate your comments or suggestions over this topic.
> 
> Tks and regards to all.
> 
> Changelog:
> v2: creating an initial binding for lidar v2 and v3 (fallback to v2)
>     also, moving v2 out of trivial
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250701223341.36835-1-rodrigo.gobbi.7@xxxxxxxxx/#t
> ---
>  .../proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml  | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml  |  2 -
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..f49a1c365f3a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Pulsedlight LIDAR-Lite v2 range-finding sensor
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Matt Ranostay <mranostay@xxxxxxxxx>
@Jonathan, in this case Matt didn't "ack" this and looking for other references I've notice two different emails like matt.ranostay@xxxxxxxxxxxx/matt@ranostay.consulting. 
What is the best approach here regarding the maintainers ref?

Either way, I'll work in a new patchset addressing all the things mentioned before.
Tks and regards.