On 07/07/2022 14:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 22/06/2022 23:58, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Hardware random, PCI and clock drivers for the PolarFire SoC have been >>> upstreamed but are not covered by the MAINTAINERS entry, so add them. >>> Daire is the author of the clock & PCI drivers, so add him as a >>> maintainer in place of Lewis. >>> >>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Arnd, Palmer: >> Does the SoC tree make more sense for this patch? >> I am missing an ack from Herbert (but I don't think that's blocking >> for a MAINTAINERS update to my own entry?). >> >> If SoC is the better option, should I resend this to soc@xxxxxxxxxx? >> Unfortunately, since I originally sent this patch there have been >> other changes to this entry that will conflict in -next (all are >> additions so easily resolved...). >> >> I was hoping to get this patch applied to v5.19-rc(foo) since we >> never added maintainers entries for these drivers rather than wait >> for v5.20. >> >> If you (plural) would rather wait for v5.20, I can resubmit this patch >> after v5.20-mw1 with an additional i2c entry (if the driver is applied) >> that already has an ack from Wolfram. > > I tend to take MAINTAINERS updates as bugfixes in the soc tre > (for 5.19), and I can pick it up if you send it to soc@xxxxxxxxxx. Cool, I will resend to soc@xxxxxxxxxx. > > There should never be a need to wait for the merge window > with these updates, it's either a bugfix (for 5.19) or for the current > -next cycle (5.20). I was just suggesting that to avoid conflicts in linux-next but they will/can be trivially resolved. Thanks Arnd. Conor.
