Messages in this thread | | | From | ZHIZHIKIN Andrey <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: configs: drop unused BACKLIGHT_GENERIC option | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:48:49 +0000 |
| |
Hello Arnd,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:50 PM > To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; ZHIZHIKIN Andrey > <andrey.zhizhikin@leica-geosystems.com>; Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzk@kernel.org>; linux@armlinux.org.uk; nicolas.ferre@microchip.com; > ludovic.desroches@microchip.com; tony@atomide.com; > mripard@kernel.org; wens@csie.org; jernej.skrabec@siol.net; > thierry.reding@gmail.com; jonathanh@nvidia.com; will@kernel.org; > tsbogend@alpha.franken.de; James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com; > deller@gmx.de; mpe@ellerman.id.au; benh@kernel.crashing.org; > paulus@samba.org; lee.jones@linaro.org; sam@ravnborg.org; > emil.l.velikov@gmail.com; daniel.thompson@linaro.org; linux-arm- > kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux- > mips@vger.kernel.org; linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc- > dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; Olof Johansson > <olof@lixom.net>; arm-soc <arm@kernel.org> > 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.
Just as a proposal: Maybe those addresses should at least be included in the Documentation ("Select the recipients for your patch" section of "Submitting patches"), much like stable@ is. Those who get themselves familiarized with it - would get an idea about which list they would need to include in Cc: for such changes.
That should IMHO partially reduce the traffic on the list since it would not pop-up in the output of get_maintainer.pl, but would at least be documented so contributors can follow the process.
> > > > 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.
Should I collect all Ack's and re-send this series including the list "nobody talks about" :), or the series can be picked up as-is?
Your advice would be really welcomed here!
> > 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
Regards, Andrey
| |