RE: [PATCH v4 6/6] MAINTAINERS: add entry for the RTL8723B rtw88 driver

[Ping-Ke Shih]

Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu Sep 24, 2026 at 3:24 AM CEST, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> +REALTEK RTL8723B WIRELESS DRIVER (rtw88)
> >> +M:     Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> +L:     linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> +S:     Maintained
> >> +F:     drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8723b*.c
> >> +F:     drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8723b*.h
> >> +
> >
> > I think no need this entry.
> >
> > Just with below 'R', the ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl with rtw88 patch can
> > output your name, no?
> >
> >>  REALTEK WIRELESS DRIVER (rtw88)
> >>  M:     Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> +R:     Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>  L:     linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>  S:     Maintained
> >>  T:     git https://github.com/pkshih/rtw.git
> >> --
> >> 2.55.0
> >
> > By the way, your patch should tag rtw-next (i.e. [PATCH v5 rtw-next]).
> > Otherwise, NIPA test your patches on wireless-next tree, reporting
> > errors [1].
> >
> > I don't know if someone is reading your patches. I'd skip v4.
> > Please wait a while and send v5.
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/user/todo/linux-wireless/?series=1172592
> 
> Thank you. I will hold and send v5 tagged [PATCH v5 rtw-next], and I am
> reading the list in the meantime.
> 
> On the entry: it is a maintainer entry for one driver, which is not the
> same thing as the reviewer line. The file's legend:
> 
>         M: *Mail* patches to: FullName <address@domain>
>         R: Designated *Reviewer*: FullName <address@domain>
>            These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
> 
> The names it reports them under are "maintainer:" and "reviewer:":
> get_maintainer gives the M: role the first and pushes R: entries as the
> second. With R: alone the entry says my name should be CCed on RTL8723B
> patches, which is correct, and I have kept that line, but it does not
> say that anyone is expected to look after the chip.
> 
> Documentation/maintainer/feature-and-driver-maintainers.rst covers
> exactly this case, a maintainer for one driver inside a larger
> subsystem:
> 
>   - "The term maintainer spans a very wide range of levels of
>     engagement ... to people responsible for a small feature or a
>     driver";
>   - "Drivers and alike most often do not have their own mailing lists
>     and git trees but instead send and review patches on the list of a
>     larger subsystem" - which is why the entry deliberately has no T:
>     line and patches keep going through rtw-next;
>   - "Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their
>     drivers, no matter how trivial" and "an Acked-by or Reviewed-by tag
>     ... from a single maintainer is enough to satisfy this
>     requirement" - an Acked-by on the list for 8723b patches is the
>     role I am asking for, not a tree of my own;
>   - "Most natural and common choice of a maintainer is the author of
>     the code", and the file "is not a list of credits ... it is a list
>     of those who will actively help with the code".
> 
> I know that least one person(with my help) is working on an RTL8723BE (PCIe)
> build and I expect an RTL8723BU (USB) to be added eventually. rtw8723b*.c and
> rtw8723b*.h already cover all three variants, so the family has one named
> owner as it grows, and those patches do not all have to reach you first.
> 
> It is not a claim on rtw88. The patterns cover rtw8723b*.c and
> rtw8723b*.h only. Nothing else in the directory changes: get_maintainer
> on reg.h returns you as maintainer and me as reviewer whether the
> section is present or not, and the R: line you suggested is what puts me
> on those patches.
> 
> The nesting is not new: the ath family keeps separate entries for ath5k,
> ath9k, ath10k and carl9170 inside ATHEROS ATH GENERIC UTILITIES, whose
> F: is drivers/net/wireless/ath/* and whose M: is Jeff Johnson, and ath5k
> and carl9170 carry M: with no T: line, as this one would.

Is this a good example to your case? Jeff is the maintainer of all ath drivers.

> 
> This is about the one chip I have the hardware for, not a proposal to
> split the other rtw88 chips out of your entry.
> 
> checkpatch --strict on the MAINTAINERS patch is 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> 
> If you would still rather keep it to the R: line, say so and the
> section goes, it is one patch, and it should not hold up the series,
> but please take these points into account.

As I mentioned earlier, I suggested to subscribe mailing list and review
rtw88 patches (I read your limitation, but I think it is easier to find
an alternative way, no?). 

As you replied [1], I suppose you have subscribed the list, right?

I still think 'R' is enough. With your subscription of mailing list, 
I even think we can drop this patch, no need to update MAINTAINERS.

Bitterblue Smith you Cc'd is a main contributor of WiFi drivers (not
limit to Realtek). I don't see any difficult to him to review and 
contribute patches. (If I miss something, please correct me, Bitterblue).
Anyway, I want to see people really contribute community and then
add their names, not reverse way. I don't like to clean MAINTAINERS
sometime.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20260926180007.28030-1-luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx/#t

Ping-Ke