[PATCH v2 2/2] clk: cdce9xxx: Add maintainer

[Tero Kristo]

On 16/12/2021 15:57, Sean Anderson wrote:
> 
> On 12/16/21 8:17 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
>> On 15/12/2021 18:47, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>> This adds an entry in MAINTAINERS for the cdce9xx driver, since it 
>>> was not
>>> added when the driver was submitted. This will help future submitters
>>> figure out who to CC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> Tero, if you don't want to maintain this I'll resubmit this patch 
>>> with the
>>> orphaned status. Alternatively, perhaps Tom wants to maintain this 
>>> driver since
>>> it is used exclusively by boards he maintains.
>>
>> Well, I am not actively maintaining this, as I am not employed by TI 
>> anymore. :)
>>
>> That said, I don't see how much work there is needed for this driver 
>> anyways, it is very simple, and it can be considered "completed". 
>> That's the reason I didn't initially put any maintainer on it. Marking 
>> it "orphaned" would be a bit too harsh status for it imho, as it is 
>> still used by TI platforms, and it gets actively tested by them.
> 
> Well, the issue that I would like to resolve is that in order to CC you
> I had to look up who did the initial commit, and even then the email was
> wrong (since it had your TI email). So for the benefit of future
> hackers, I would like to record your current email. I suppose your
> Reviewed-By on the first patch will do.

Yes, I understand your point, however adding a maintainer entry for 
every tiny driver is a bit of an overkill. And well, it would also need 
an ack from the subsystem maintainer itself, whether he/she wants to 
share the workload on it or not.

U-boot contains a script called get_maintainer, that can be used to 
fetch the valid maintainer entry for a file. In this case, it reports 
Lukasz, which, imho, is just fine. cdce9xxx is not going to face many 
changes, and if any, those are just generic framework changes/fixes 
which can be handled just fine by the subsystem maintainers.

-Tero