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

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

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.