From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-69.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F045B47F3C3 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 23:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.69 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790034835; cv=none; b=o4bpLDqLTPVS9XSencmnHHuMGXkKGmDca1HhniSWBSBwTAyPU8PYuISnwjXjJ+r8o5HLDWgFxDOWRoSGIwTfNvEEFaYBMHV/yVP5bOUY7aGfbiElsBWi0V9sNbt/U+yR4PGv4ZNDFbIXRLZfRnj3F3l/xwpp5hpj2g2Mk3a9JS4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790034835; c=relaxed/simple; bh=V8emTKoM/0GiIrwKe1z+gDxd9KQpEZV0x/a+ZoamoDQ=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Content-Type:From:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=KqtecBalqDV1QrxEmLt19TfLhPXThQaAhkToJVR6VRRbiCVVtZEtJKeakhDjCxo/CMpDrUpgDvSG2womgta+USXwIfUEJoM40V5/cyFqevgIDhquyqfqusN3hTJYW7egTrKFB0XKphgjkKHjcyRd/QqH3QqjokEYaAyWi2HU9lw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=KMWN7/2g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.69 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="KMWN7/2g" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=V8emTKoM/0GiIrwKe1z+gDxd9KQpEZV0x/a+ZoamoDQ=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1790034829; v=1; x=1790639629; b=KMWN7/2gtMHFF2INcbq1pcCDvOKvikdVbZB17XvntpbbC5HCr80Vlvl90c5eLHlQwOXJDmFb a5tplz6P18WVQuEqUMA5f1tGxi5uRfqJI27kbdlgGh0SptspNpEhuHvTKQ1f9soxU+souaFIxyq CCVgjsZRzNYQhq+bQ9af9f40= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 5bb35089b14b2b69; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 23:53:49 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 5bb35089b14b2b69 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 23:53:48 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Luka Gejak" Message-ID: TLS-Required: No Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] MAINTAINERS: add entry for the RTL8723B rtw88 driver To: "Jeff Johnson" , "Johannes Berg" , "Ping-Ke Shih" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Michael Straube" , "Peter Robinson" , "Bitterblue Smith" , luka.gejak@linux.dev In-Reply-To: References: <20260921154347.82317-1-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <20260921154347.82317-7-luka.gejak@linux.dev> <45eb7d5908f8fff9a18cba603fd3a4abfe8695f9.camel@sipsolutions.net> <31285267ebc43aab631a4199059a247a8d937814@linux.dev> September 22, 2026 at 1:35 AM, "Jeff Johnson" wrote: >=20 >=20On 9/21/2026 11:14 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >=20 >=20>=20 >=20> On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 16:49 +0000, Luka Gejak wrote: > >=20 >=20> >=20 >=20> > It is supposed to work in the same way it works for other driver > > > maintainers. I would review patches and provide my acked by or > > > reviewed by them and Ping-Ke would apply them to his rtw-next bran= ch. > > >=20 >=20>=20=20 >=20> I don't think we have a lot of folks below the driver maintainers = who s > > end me pull requests (except Toke maybe?) - but as long as I don't n= eed > > to deal with it I'm happy, you can figure it out between yourselves = :) > >=20 >=20For ath.git there are sub-maintainers for ath5k (Multiple), ath9k (To= ke), > carl9170 (Christian), and wcn36xx (Loic). >=20 >=20Toke has a linux-wireless patchwork account so the ath9k patches are = initially > assigned to him in patchwork, and he Acks on the list and assigns the > patchwork records to me when he approves patches. >=20 >=20For the others the maintainers just Ack on the list, and I take them = from there. >=20 >=20So the question is do how do you want to handle this in patchwork? >=20 >=20/jeff > What do you think makes more sense here: patchwork delegate access like Toke has for ath9k, or on list ack based? I'd lean towards delegate access if it's not a big ask on your end, but happy to go with whatever works best operationally for you. Best regards, Luka Gejak