From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF322868A9; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766503428; cv=none; b=OH1mjmYEiK3KR+gzxGPurD4Co1f8Fev24TBEa0Bb7RtdaT2x/uGirBaex4LPnrzKiNJOHCTx+PFvqqGGJ6OyOTuJJfoB2tcmSSER2CZ0JiuIwsaAP9M823DtsgGSOsqMlO1I5b3ZX1MfocLhk6iO4ic0HTjBUk5dQ5Z8SH0EzfU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766503428; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x0CMqlBSaoGhoVxFQwkV00hebP/cnZHny9/xIWZQY58=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CaISZVPhKz/xIlB1GSjBNtLvmHDKzU3jDtyC4NohsrTDZXpvFxgsc0fuM1rGBa8tLrjpntU/jVaCX2pRi7RfKs9e9bIk4JXpol9G5dJ9iNhQPqZs11zB3JXlg5Roq4rw0WvMWmSsfJJrdQVNSC3LaDvm9p0qoTZKaEJgshV77Sc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=s31WIABB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="s31WIABB" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 88E0540AFF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1766503424; bh=LOL+AU7kVQyOpYQ+Kf5A4ON6XtLBAZC/C5kIrkAAMMY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=s31WIABBnz/69IfOXguM2PScYz+zPgmqMyTUH2dALC9zZjJY+BFPgwQ7PyfdvaNzO NJRjODp9ayy/VWT+6oaXylLbHZ2PpJikFFmlpYfwBjtA6ySoH74QV5lUE6THGrpA/l EqTdgINL1rfaX40xJ2IofEGLYuqfPwxB3ZefCl9mJI0U32nUUiLbT0gQtasT1p4J8b nrX7ZWWmUS8wDOgAACWolgwoudFUCzOWzFU8ZxpCKskQ/fxROYtykjoH86ywLvHZdW uWr3CKMEr+za8eyKGhfE8DWfUkSmPavYm2RjoylGL69N8Wr+bfYJ2vgSwZgtagWYi1 ixFP/hLDsg0fg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88E0540AFF; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Arnd Bergmann , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Alexandre Belloni , Linus Walleij , Drew Fustini , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, soc@lists.linux.dev, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: Be more explicit about defconfig In-Reply-To: <20251223142726.73417-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20251223142726.73417-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 08:23:43 -0700 Message-ID: <87ecolxlvk.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Krzysztof Kozlowski writes: > It is already documented but people still send noticeable amount of > patches ignoring the rule - get_maintainers.pl does not work on > arm64/configs/defconfig or any other shared ARM defconfig. > > Be more explicit, that one must not rely on typical/simple approach > here for getting To/Cc list. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > --- > > Incorrectly addressed patches for arm64/defconfig are around ~2 per month... > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > index 3ba886f52a51..014c639022b2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > @@ -57,8 +57,10 @@ Submitting Patches for Given SoC > > All typical platform related patches should be sent via SoC submaintainers > (platform-specific maintainers). This includes also changes to per-platform or > -shared defconfigs (scripts/get_maintainer.pl might not provide correct > -addresses in such case). > +shared defconfigs. Note that scripts/get_maintainer.pl might not provide > +correct addresses for the shared defconfig, so ignore its output and manually > +create CC-list based on MAINTAINERS file or use something like > +``scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/soc/FOO/``). > Like Laurent, I don't see this as being effective. Why is it that get_maintainer.pl fails here? It seems far better to fix that, if at all possible, rather than expect random contributors to notice this text and work around the problem...? Thanks, jon