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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7446cf8b-cadb-4f4d-9870-51bcda46a831@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:47:26 +0200
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
 Mudit Sharma <muditsharma.info@...il.com>, ivan.orlov0322@...il.com,
 jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Add maintainer for ROHM BH1745

On 04/06/2024 15:38, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 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
> 

Good point, in that case it would make more sense. But this driver only
apllies to iio, and there won't be such conflicts. But thank you for
that clarification.

By the way, I think you have some issue with your email configuration
(no line wrapping).

Best regards,
Javier Carrasco