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.
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).
Arnd
