On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:01:21PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

The proposed maintainership model is joint custody between netdev and
linux-phy, because of the fact that these properties can be applied to
Ethernet PCS blocks just as well as Generic PHY devices. I've added as
maintainers those from "ETHERNET PHY LIBRARY", "NETWORKING DRIVERS" and
"GENERIC PHY FRAMEWORK".

I dunno.. ain't no such thing as "joint custody" maintainership.
We have to pick one tree. Given the set of Ms here, I suspect 
the best course of action may be to bubble this up to its own tree.
Ask Konstantin for a tree in k.org, then you can "co-post" the patches
for review + PR link in the cover letter (e.g. how Tony from Intel
submits their patches). This way not networking and PHY can pull
the shared changes with stable commit IDs.

I can see how this makes some sense. If nobody has any objection, I'll
follow up to this by emailing Konstantin about a git tree for shared
infrastructure between generic PHY and networking.

We can do out-of-sequence netdev call tomorrow if folks want to talk
this thru (8:30am Pacific)

Not sure it's that big of a discussion topic.

quoted

+GENERIC PHY COMMON PROPERTIES
+M:	Andrew Lunn [off-list ref]
+M:	"David S. Miller" [off-list ref]
+M:	Eric Dumazet [off-list ref]
+M:	Heiner Kallweit [off-list ref]
+M:	Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]
+M:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I [off-list ref]
+M:	Paolo Abeni [off-list ref]
+R:	Russell King [off-list ref]
+M:	Vinod Koul [off-list ref]

checkpatch nit: apparently it wants all Ms first, then all Rs.

Thanks for pointing this out.

This will probably have to be changed quite a bit in v2 if the "separate
git tree" idea is going to be implemented. I'll probably start with an
empty list and request volunteers to step up.