On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx.
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@xxxxxxxxxx, 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
