[RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

The Samsung email address will stop working soon, so use my personal
email address instead.

Also, there used to be a MFD and RTC drivers for max77802 but now these
have been merged with the max77686 MFD and RTC drivers. The only driver
that's still max77802 specific is the regulator one since there are too
many differences with max77686 there to justify merging the two drivers.

Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>
Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

---
Resending the patch so that Mark can apply it through the regulator tree.

 MAINTAINERS | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index e35370a0c04c..5e19e6913682 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -8069,11 +8069,11 @@ S:	Supported
 F:	drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c
 F:	drivers/power/supply/max77693_charger.c
 
-MAXIM MAX77802 MULTIFUNCTION PMIC DEVICE DRIVERS
-M:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
+MAXIM MAX77802 PMIC REGULATOR DEVICE DRIVER
+M:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>
 L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Supported
-F:	drivers/*/*max77802*.c
+F:	drivers/regulator/max77802-regulator.c
 F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/*/*max77802.txt
 F:	include/dt-bindings/*/*max77802.h
 
-- 
2.9.3

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:36:25AM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Lee Jones]

On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:36:25AM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
> > Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> 
> Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
> ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
> expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).

I don't agree with this.  You provided your Ack under the assumption
that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason
why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case.
 
It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
*eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
part of my daily routine.

TL;DR:  If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by
tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until
acceptance.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1698 bytes --]

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:51:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
> > ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
> > expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).

> I don't agree with this.  You provided your Ack under the assumption
> that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason
> why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case.

When I see a patch I've acked, especially one that I'd not expect to
apply, I'll just delete the mail since I've already reviewed it.  I get
lots of such stuff that's part of a bigger series resent for
whatever reason.  One of the first questions I ask myself if I'm not
sure why I have something is if I already handled it and if so I often
stop there.  

This didn't happen here mainly because I remembered what the patch was,
if I'd forgotten I'd probably have just discarded it for the same reason
I initially acked it.  Of course it's possible that that could've
happened anyway but it's less likely as it's less mechanical.

> It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
> *eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
> part of my daily routine.

You're the only person I'm aware of who does this.

> TL;DR:  If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by
> tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until
> acceptance.

Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than
anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Mark and Lee,

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:51:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
>> > ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
>> > expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).
>

I wondered what to do for this corner case... since I also didn't want
you to tell me why I didn't carry the provided Acked-by tag :)

>> I don't agree with this.  You provided your Ack under the assumption
>> that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason
>> why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case.
>
> When I see a patch I've acked, especially one that I'd not expect to
> apply, I'll just delete the mail since I've already reviewed it.  I get
> lots of such stuff that's part of a bigger series resent for
> whatever reason.  One of the first questions I ask myself if I'm not
> sure why I have something is if I already handled it and if so I often
> stop there.
>
> This didn't happen here mainly because I remembered what the patch was,
> if I'd forgotten I'd probably have just discarded it for the same reason
> I initially acked it.  Of course it's possible that that could've
> happened anyway but it's less likely as it's less mechanical.
>

Thanks a lot for clarifying your process. I'll remember to drop your
Acked-by tag if the same situation happens in the future for patches
to your subsystems.

>> It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
>> *eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
>> part of my daily routine.

Yes, I know you add Acks for your own reference to know that the patch
has been already reviewed/acked by you. So I'll continue to carry them
for patches to the MFD subsystem.

Best regards,
Javier

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:51:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
> > > ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
> > > expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).
> 
> > I don't agree with this.  You provided your Ack under the assumption
> > that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason
> > why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case.
> 
> When I see a patch I've acked, especially one that I'd not expect to
> apply, I'll just delete the mail since I've already reviewed it.  I get
> lots of such stuff that's part of a bigger series resent for
> whatever reason.  One of the first questions I ask myself if I'm not
> sure why I have something is if I already handled it and if so I often
> stop there.  
> 
> This didn't happen here mainly because I remembered what the patch was,
> if I'd forgotten I'd probably have just discarded it for the same reason
> I initially acked it.  Of course it's possible that that could've
> happened anyway but it's less likely as it's less mechanical.

Although logical and of benefit to you most of the time, doing that
will lead to exactly this issue occasionally.  If you adopt such a
process, you need to be aware (and forgiving) of it when users submit
patches for you to apply which contain your Ack.

> > It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
> > *eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
> > part of my daily routine.
> 
> You're the only person I'm aware of who does this.

The operative words here are "I'm aware".  Conversely, I know lots of
Maintainers who do this, but I guess that comes with the territory
when dealing with the types of patch-sets that I handle.  Often times
we do not know who will take a particular cross-subsystem set until
the reviews have been conducted.  Usually it ends up being myself, but
not always.

> > TL;DR:  If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by
> > tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until
> > acceptance.
> 
> Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than
> anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1232 bytes --]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
> > > *eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
> > > part of my daily routine.

> > You're the only person I'm aware of who does this.

> The operative words here are "I'm aware".  Conversely, I know lots of
> Maintainers who do this, but I guess that comes with the territory
> when dealing with the types of patch-sets that I handle.  Often times

Interesting...  any examples?  I get quite a bit of this as well as a
result of regmap and regulator and I can't say it's ever come up.

> > > TL;DR:  If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by
> > > tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until
> > > acceptance.

> > Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than
> > anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them.

> I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this.

An ack is basically a step down from a review saying "I'm OK with this
being applied" but not actually "I did a thorough review".  That makes
it a bit funny compared to a review, testing or similar.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]