Common mistake in commit messages of patches on mailing list adding
CONFIG options to arm/multi_v7 or arm64/defconfig is saying what that
patch is doing, e.g. "Enable driver foo". That is obvious from the diff
part, thus explaining it does not bring any value. What brings value is
to understand why "driver foo" should be in a shared, upstream
defconfig, especially considering that distros have their own defconfigs
and we do not care about non-upstream trees.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260413074401.27282-4-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
It is obvious that one can ask DT maintainers of something, just like
one can ask anyone, so just drop the sentence. Concise documents with
rules have bigger chances of actually being read by people.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260413074401.27282-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
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>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251223142726.73417-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Devicetree is a data structure and it is a bit generic term, because
some treat Devicetree bindings as Devicetree. What the SoC maintainers
profile is mentioning in ABI stability are the Devicetree sources, so
DTS files. It is also more common during reviews to refer to these as
per "DTS" instead "devicetree".
Clarify that by using "DTS" name in few more places.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250812104154.42289-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Patches for SoCs are expected to be picked up by SoC submaintainers.
The main SoC maintainers should be addressed only in few cases.
Rewrite the section about maintainer handling to document above
expectation.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240925095635.30452-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Samsung ARM/ARM64 SoCs (except legacy S5PV210) are also expected not to
bring any new dtbs_check warnings. In fact this have been already
enforced and tested since few release.
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230712084131.127982-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Arnd suggested that adding a maintainer handbook for the SoC "subsystem"
would be helpful in trying to bring on board maintainers for the various
new platforms cropping up in RISC-V land.
Add a document briefly describing the role of the SoC subsystem and some
basic advice for (new) platform maintainers.
Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
