Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Add KX022A maintainer entry

[Joe Perches]

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 <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   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 <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > +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/87ac9a5e-b5ba-82f3-c00c-75d5e6f01597@xxxxxxxxx/
> 
> 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.