Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Add maintainer for ROHM BH1745

[Matti Vaittinen]

On 6/4/24 15:53, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 04/06/2024 12:44, Mudit Sharma wrote:
> > On 03/06/2024 23:37, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> > > On 03/06/2024 18:21, Mudit Sharma wrote:
> > > > Add myself as maintainer for ROHM BH1745 colour sensor driver.
> > >
> > > is there any special reason to have a separate patch for this? The
> > > addition to MAINTANERS for new drives is usually included in the patch
> > > that provides the driver itself.
> >
> > Adding this in a separate commit was just a pattern I notices with some
> > other drivers, for instance 3b4e0e9.
> >
> > If necessary and/or considered good practice, I can squash this in the
> > patch that brings in the driver.
>
> Although there might be some cases where it was added separately, it is
> much more common that it is added to the patch that provides the driver.
> Some perfectionists even include the entry in the dt-bindings patch, and
> then add the link to the driver code in the driver patch. I believe that
> a simple squash would be ok, though.

I believe there is a notable case where having MAINTAINERS updates as a 
separate patch makes sense. When one creates drivers for a device which 
touches multiple subsystems, typically a set of MFD drivers. This is 
usually done as a set of subsystem specific patches, each adding 
subsystem specific file(s). In this case adding MAINTAINER info 
separately for each sub-driver will create unnecessary churn in the 
MAINTAINERS file - which I believe is already now a major source of 
merge conflicts. I am not sure of this is a reason to have MAINTAINERS 
updates in own patch though.

Furthermore, I've been instructed by Rob (AFAIR) to omit the dt-binding 
files from the MAINTAINERS because the maintainer information is already 
contained in the bindings itself.

Yours,
	-- Matti

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

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