Re: [RFC] Maintainer entry profile/contributor guide for IIO

["Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 04:51:24PM +0200, Joshua Crofts wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:28:24 +0100
> Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com> wrote:
> > > I'd propose 2 documents:
> > > - entry profile - documenting the review cycle, patchwork, point people over to
> > >   Sashiko, relevant git tree etc.
> > > - code style - the TODO is fine for existing problems in the subsystem but doesn't
> > >   point out idioms we have in IIO, i.e. not using (the awful) kernel.h, preferring
> > >   devm_* functions, not failing on a mismatched ID to ensure fallback etc. This is
> > >   stuff that appears a lot in patches.  
> > 
> > Personally I do think we have some things (not just coding style)  that are very
> > specific to IIO. But maybe another docs file is not the question. Or at least one
> > for humans to read :)?! Have you evaluate just having an IIO entry for
> > sashiko? That way, hopefully the bot would take care about the subsystem
> > specifics and preferences.
> > 
> > I wanted to do this myself at some point but I'm always pulled for
> > something else so if this is feels like something you agree and would
> > like to get done, please go ahead :)
> > 
> > [1]: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/tree/main/kernel/subsystem
> > 
> > My 2 cents!
> > - Nuno Sá
> 
> There was a thread about adding Sashiko reviews to IIO but it died out :(
> I proposed adding an IIO-specific prompt. Any ideas on what it should contain?

Not sure if I get the above. I already see sashiko doing reviews in IIO?
What am I missing?

What I mean is adding specialized IIO preferences/tecnical details to it. And for that
we need to add a new iio.md in [1] and a table entry in [2]. If I'm not
missing anything.

Sashiko is using the review prompt repo.

[1]: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/tree/main/kernel/subsystem
[2]: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/subsystem.md

- Nuno Sá

> 
> As Krzysztof says, there isn't really a point in making a new doc as people
> just don't read docs (I know I didn't when I was starting out, but perhaps
> just consulting with an LLM was a mistake :) )
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Joshua Crofts