Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: Be more explicit about defconfig

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 23/12/2025 17:27, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 04:32:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/12/2025 16:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> 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 <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> 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/``).
>>>
>>> I fear this will be another piece of documentation that people won't
>>> read. It would be more effective to implement custom logic in
>>> get_maintainer.pl (or at least output an informative message).
>>
>> Part of the logic is already there, but I will not grow that - I don't
>> want to touch Perl code. It's pretty obvious the tool should be do it,
>> so feel free to fix it.
> 
> Even if I knew perl, I'd have no time :-)

Same here. I see little incentive for me to spend significant amount of
time on this - considering I barely know Perl and how much I like this
language - to solve not my problem. The best I could do is to clarify
the docs. I agree however that this will be one more ignored doc, so I
don't mind skipping the patch.

Patch 2/2 is independent though, so please still consider it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof