Hello Arnd,

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; ZHIZHIKIN Andrey
[off-list ref]; Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref]; linux@armlinux.org.uk; nicolas.ferre@microchip.com;
ludovic.desroches@microchip.com; tony@atomide.com;
mripard@kernel.org; wens@csie.org; jernej.skrabec@siol.net;
thierry.reding@gmail.com; jonathanh@nvidia.com; will@kernel.org;
tsbogend@alpha.franken.de; James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com;
deller@gmx.de; mpe@ellerman.id.au; benh@kernel.crashing.org;
paulus@samba.org; lee.jones@linaro.org; sam@ravnborg.org;
emil.l.velikov@gmail.com; daniel.thompson@linaro.org; linux-arm-
kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-
mips@vger.kernel.org; linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref]; Olof Johansson
[off-list ref]; arm-soc [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: configs: drop unused BACKLIGHT_GENERIC
option


On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Belloni
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 01/12/2020 14:40:53+0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:50:25PM +0000, ZHIZHIKIN Andrey wrote:

quoted

From Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref]:

quoted

quoted

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@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.

quoted

quoted

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@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