Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: phy: realtek: add PHY driver for RTL8127ATF

[Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>]

On 1/10/2026 8:00 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:57:40 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 18:23:06 +0100 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2026 2:28 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
>>>> How would you feel about putting this in include/net ?
>>>> Easy to miss things in linux/, harder to grep, not to
>>>> mention that some of our automation (patchwork etc) has
>>>> its own delegation rules, not using MAINTAINERS.    
>>>
>>> Just sent a v2 with the new header moved to new include/net/phy/.
>>> patchwork is showing a warning rgd a missing new MAINTAINERS entry.
>>> However this new entry is added with the patch:
>>>
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -9416,6 +9416,7 @@ F:	include/linux/phy_link_topology.h
>>>  F:	include/linux/phylib_stubs.h
>>>  F:	include/linux/platform_data/mdio-bcm-unimac.h
>>>  F:	include/linux/platform_data/mdio-gpio.h
>>> +F:	include/net/phy/
>>>  F:	include/trace/events/mdio.h
>>>  F:	include/uapi/linux/mdio.h
>>>  F:	include/uapi/linux/mii.h
>>>
>>> Bug in the check?  
>>
>> My reading of it was basically that it's upset that realtek PHYs don't
>> have a dedicated maintainer. The check considers the PHY subsystem as
>> too large for the same people to cover core and all the drivers.
>> If that's the case then the check is working as expected.
>> It's just flagging the sub-optimal situation to the maintainers.
>>
>> I wasn't sure if you'd be willing to create a dedicated MAINTAINERS
>> entry for Realtek PHYs. The check itself is safe to ignore in this case.
> 
> PS FWIW the check is our replacement for the utterly useless checkpatch
> check that asks for a MAINTAINERS entry every time a new file is added.
> I wanted to mute that without feeling guilty for ignoring a potentially
> useful suggestion so I coded up a more intelligent check which asks for
> MAINTAINERS entry only if the file doesn't fall under any reasonably
> sized entry already.

I see, thanks for the explanation. At the moment realtek_phy.h holds just
a single PHY ID, so it's fine to give it a home with the phylib maintainers.
You're right, it would be good to have dedicated maintainer(s) for the
Realtek PHY drivers. Ideally persons with access to Realtek datasheets.
Maybe based on this discussion somebody volunteers ..