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

Jonathan Corbet corbet at lwn.net
Tue Dec 23 07:23:43 PST 2025


Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at oss.qualcomm.com> 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 <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/``).
>  

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



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list