Hello Arnd,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann <a...@kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:50 PM
> To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.bell...@bootlin.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>; ZHIZHIKIN Andrey
> <andrey.zhizhi...@leica-geosystems.com>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k...@kernel.org>; li...@armlinux.org.uk; nicolas.fe...@microchip.com;
> ludovic.desroc...@microchip.com; t...@atomide.com;
> mrip...@kernel.org; w...@csie.org; jernej.skra...@siol.net;
> thierry.red...@gmail.com; jonath...@nvidia.com; w...@kernel.org;
> tsbog...@alpha.franken.de; james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com;
> del...@gmx.de; m...@ellerman.id.au; b...@kernel.crashing.org;
> pau...@samba.org; lee.jo...@linaro.org; s...@ravnborg.org;
> emil.l.veli...@gmail.com; daniel.thomp...@linaro.org; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> o...@vger.kernel.org; linux-te...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> m...@vger.kernel.org; linux-par...@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> d...@lists.ozlabs.org; Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>; Olof Johansson
> <o...@lixom.net>; arm-soc <a...@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.bell...@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 <k...@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 s...@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 s...@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
