On 17/06/2023 20:32, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Arnd, > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:23:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, at 10:27, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> Arnd suggested that adding a maintainer handbook for the SoC "subsystem" >>> would be helpful in trying to bring on board maintainers for the various >>> new platforms cropping up in RISC-V land. >>> >>> Add a document briefly describing the role of the SoC subsystem and some >>> basic advice for (new) platform maintainers. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Changes in v3: >>> - sort out a rake of spelling/grammar bits spotted by Randy, apart from >>> the one noted as a suggestion >>> - drop the refs for document filepaths >> >> Thanks, I've applied this in the soc/newsoc branch of the soc tree >> now, which is where I'm already queuing new platforms. > > Having cited this document for the first time, it came to mind that I > never mentioned putting the submaintainer trees into linux-next. Should > I send a follow-up patch for that, or do you think that that isn't This is common maintainer stuff, so every maintainer - not only SoC related - should ensure his tree is in next. I would trim all such common things from the document and store it somewhere else, because otherwise people will just not read it. Best regards, Krzysztof
