On 23/12/2025 16:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > 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 <[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/``). > > 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. No point however to stop proper documentation. Best regards, Krzysztof
