Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > --- > > 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
