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

[Vaittinen, Matti]

On 10/24/22 14:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 10:56 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>> On 10/24/22 13:40, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
>>>
>>> 	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.
> 
> Please do not conflate a "reviewer", someone that "might" look at
> a patch and offer comments, and a "supporter", someone that actively
> supports the driver/subsystem.  I don't have a tree that is pulled
> yet I am the get_maintainer and checkpatch maintainer.

I'd like to ask what the "actively support a driver" means in practice 
as I am pretty sure that is what I do. So perhaps I should change myself 
from a reviewer to a maintainer for these drivers then.

Yours
	-- Matti


-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~