Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:50:22 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: configs: drop unused BACKLIGHT_GENERIC option |
| |
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2020 14:40:53+0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:50:25PM +0000, ZHIZHIKIN Andrey wrote: > > > From Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>:
> > I tried to convince them before, it didn't work. I guess they don't like > > to be spammed ;). > > The first rule of arm-soc is: you do not talk about arm@ and soc@
I don't mind having the addresses documented better, but it needs to be done in a way that avoids having any patch for arch/arm*/boot/dts and arch/arm/*/configs Cc:d to soc@kernel.org.
If anyone has suggestions for how to do that, let me know.
> > Or rather, SoC-specific patches, even to defconfig, > > should go through the specific SoC maintainers. However, there are > > occasional defconfig patches which are more generic or affecting > > multiple SoCs. I just ignore them as the arm64 defconfig is usually > > handled by the arm-soc folk (when I need a defconfig change, I go for > > arch/arm64/Kconfig directly ;)). > > IIRC, the plan was indeed to get defconfig changes through the platform > sub-trees. It is also supposed to be how multi_v5 and multi_v7 are > handled and they will take care of the merge.
For cross-platform changes like this one, I'm definitely happy to pick up the patch directly from soc@kernel.org, or from mailing list if I know about it.
We usually do the merges for the soc tree in batches and rely on patchwork to keep track of what I'm missing, so if Olof and I are just on Cc to a mail, we might have forgotten about it by the time we do the next merges.
Arnd
| |