| Message ID | 20220808104712.54315-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio/hwmon/mfd/leds/net/power/ASoC: dt-bindings: few stale maintainers cleanup | expand |
On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:47:07 +0300 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Several of the bindings here had only one > maintainer and history does not always point to a new one (although I did not > perform extensive digging). I added subsystem maintainer, because dtschema > requires such entry. This is not the best choice as simply subsystem maintainer > might not have the actual device (or its datasheets or any interest in it). > > However dtschema requires a maintainer. Maybe we could add some > "orphaned" entry in such case? Integrating it with MAINTAINERS would be another option worth exploring although slightly tangential. How do you want this merged? It's all over the place subsystem-wise.
On 08/08/2022 21:52, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:47:07 +0300 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Several of the bindings here had only one >> maintainer and history does not always point to a new one (although I did not >> perform extensive digging). I added subsystem maintainer, because dtschema >> requires such entry. This is not the best choice as simply subsystem maintainer >> might not have the actual device (or its datasheets or any interest in it). >> >> However dtschema requires a maintainer. Maybe we could add some >> "orphaned" entry in such case? > > Integrating it with MAINTAINERS would be another option worth exploring > although slightly tangential. > > How do you want this merged? It's all over the place subsystem-wise. I was thinking this could go via Rob's tree as fixes for current cycle, so your Ack would be great. If there is preference, I can split it per subsystem, but for such trivial updates it's a bit of a churn. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 08:25:29 +0300 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/08/2022 21:52, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > Integrating it with MAINTAINERS would be another option worth exploring > > although slightly tangential. > > > > How do you want this merged? It's all over the place subsystem-wise. > > I was thinking this could go via Rob's tree as fixes for current cycle, > so your Ack would be great Sounds good!