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 <[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. > > 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
