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

[Vaittinen, Matti]

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 <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"

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! ~~