On Fri, 30 Jan 2026, Michał Grzelak <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Andi for the review. Do you have any suggestion via which tree > should the patch be merged? Asking since I don't have commit right to > any of drm-* repositories.
The MAINTAINERS file is the starting point for deciding all of this. The maintainer entry with files matching the files being modified specifies the maintainers, the mailing list to use, the repository, etc. In this case, the entry is "INTEL DRM I915 DRIVER", and the repo is [1]. Patches overlapping multiple entries need maintainer coordination to choose which repository to queue the changes through, and acks to record the approval. (A maintainer acks changes to files under their maintainership being merged through some other repo.) Within our repository, patches specifically touching gem or gt should be applied to the drm-intel-gt-next branch, and everything else to the drm-intel-next branch, and when in doubt, the answer is probably drm-intel-next. This is documented at [2]. Nowadays very few patches get applied to drm-intel-gt-next. I'll also note that since this change is purely about i915, sending the patch to intel-gfx would've been sufficient. Including intel-xe is not wrong, but causes CI to be run on changes that have zero impact on xe. When in doubt, do include intel-xe too. Usually the cross-posting is required for display changes that impact both i915 and xe. Finally, the subject prefix should just be "drm/i915" here. Basically the subject prefix should be either that or a more specific "drm/i915/<feature-or-platform>" where <feature-or-platform> could be e.g. "dp" or "tgl". (It's the same for xe, with just "drm/xe" instead.) 'git log --oneline path/to/source.c' gives you clues what to use. Pushed to drm-intel-next, with the subject prefix fixed, thanks for the patch. BR, Jani. [1] git https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel.git [2] https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/repositories/drm-intel.html#repository-and-branches -- Jani Nikula, Intel
