regulator: MAINTAINERS: add status for IRQ helpers

  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(+)
  

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.

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.

I am happy with the existing entries, but seems like everyone else is 
not. Still, having S: without M: can be a source of confusion. If S: is 
required, maybe add Mark as M: here as well. (Or if this is not Ok with 
Mark, switch my R to M - which in my opinion is still a bit pointless as 
the changes to drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c will flow through Mark's 
hands in any case :] )

>   F:	drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c
>   
>   VRF


Yours,
	-- Matti
  

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 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 am happy with the existing entries, but seems like everyone else is 
> not. Still, having S: without M: can be a source of confusion. If S: is 
> required, maybe add Mark as M: here as well. (Or if this is not Ok with 
> Mark, switch my R to M - which in my opinion is still a bit pointless as 
> the changes to drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c will flow through Mark's 
> hands in any case :] )
> 
Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

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