[PATCH 1/2] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: Be more explicit about defconfig

[Laurent Pinchart]

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 <krzysztof.kozlowski at oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> 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).

>  
>  Submitting Patches to the Main SoC Maintainers
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart