Re: [PATCH] regulator: MAINTAINERS: add status for IRQ helpers

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 12/21/23 10:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 07:17, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 12/18/23 12:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Each maintainer entry should have a status field:
>>>
>>>     $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --self-test=sections
>>>     ./MAINTAINERS:23368: warning: section without status
>>>
>>> Fixes: d55444adedae ("MAINTAINERS: Add reviewer for regulator irq_helpers")
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>    MAINTAINERS | 1 +
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>> index 30322190a72f..6fd22db830f5 100644
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -23367,6 +23367,7 @@ K:	regulator_get_optional
>>>    
>>>    VOLTAGE AND CURRENT REGULATOR IRQ HELPERS
>>>    R:	Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>>> +S:	Maintained
>>
>> Isn't that a bit odd seeing the M: - entry is missing as well?
>>
>> This entry falls under the drivers/regulator, and as such, is maintained
>> by Mark (and the "umbrella" entry VOLTAGE AND CURRENT REGULATOR
>> FRAMEWORK has all needed bits and pieces, like the M: and S:).
>>
>> I think the current MAINTAINERS entries reflect the reality. Mark (and
>> Liam) are THE regulator guy(s). I am just doing bits and pieces here and
>> there, like reviewing the changes to these helpers.
> 
> And your piece needs S: to explain whether you do odd fixes, maintaining
> or supporting. Although I understand questioning this with only R:, but
> I would argue that it still applies - reviewing odd fixes, reviewing
> unpaid or paid.

I still think this is a bit silly :) Reviewers are not expected to be 
picking up the patches, nor are they really expected to be writing fixes 
(although I'm somewhat committed to that). Hence, I'd claim the S: value 
for a reviewer is very irrelevant for other developers.

What many of the developers care is getting their changes in, or getting 
bugs they encounter fixed - and I bet the S: is used to get an 
indication of the likelihood this happens.

>> I guess that from a technical POV duplicating the S: and M: here is a
>> bit pointless, and as all duplicates, adds overhead when changes are done.
> 
> M: is optional, anyway the M: field from regulators count, but status
> can be different than from the parent.

I guess that in this case the status is not different as Mark is 
maintaining both :)

TBH, Even if I think it's a bit silly to have S: without M:, I don't 
care that much. From my POV, "Maintained" is the correct status. (It 
might even be "Supported" for me - but this is kind of shady as there 
may be extended periods when I am expected to fully focus on other stuff 
during my paid time - so, "Supported" is "Supported" only when there is 
bandwidth) :)

I can also be "maintaining" the regulator irq-helpers in a same fashion 
I am "maintaining" the specific PMIC or IIO drivers (Eg, I do reviewing 
but patches go via subsystem tree and the subsystem maintainer is the 
real "gatekeeper") - it might make more sense if we add this "S:" line 
(for the above reasons).

Well, I'll leave this to you and Mark to judge :)

Yours,
	-- Matti

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

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