[PATCH v5 0/8] add Voyager board support

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 05:32:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025, at 18:21, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:13:16AM +0800, Ben Zong-You Xie wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 05:17:50PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > Ball is in your court now, after rc1 make a tree and get it in
> >> > > > > linux-next, and then send a pr to soc at kernel.org with this new content.
> >> > > > > Perhaps the defconfig should go separately, I can take that one if you
> >> > > > > want.
> >
> >> > > > Thanks for your guidance on these patches. I will send a PR to
> >> > > > soc at kernel.org as you suggested.
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > For the defconfig patch, I'm happy for you to handle it. Just let me
> >> > > > know if there's anything specific you'd like me to include.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Okay, I picked it up on the basis that you'll send this all to Arnd for
> >> > > 6.17
> >> > 
> >> > Sorry, I think that was really poorly worded. I picked it up on the
> >> > basis that you're going to send the other patches in the series to Arnd
> >> > for 6.17.
> >> 
> >> According to the SoC maintainer documentation [1], I should send a
> >> patchset (not a PR) to soc at kernel.org. Since I'm not a submaintainer yet.
> >> I think I should not sent a PR to the main SoC maintainer. Is that right?
> >
> > I think you can send a PR and not worry about it.
> >
> >> Further, I have two questions about sending a patchset:   
> >> 1. Should I send v5 or start a new patchset?
> >> 2. Should I continue excluding the defconfig patch, as we discussed
> >>    previously? I think it should be included now.
> >
> > Arnd, you okay with a defconfig in the same branch as the dts/core
> > bindings for a new platform? I'll happily drop it from by branch if it
> > can all go as one.
> 
> Sorry I missed your question earlier, I finally got to it now as
> I am going through the pull requests in patchwork.

Yeah, I've been kinda out of it lately. Ordinarily I'd have pinged you
on IRC or something, but instead this thread has just been sitting in my
devicetree mail folder.

> Having the defconfig, MAINTAINERS and Kconfig updates in the branch
> for a new platform is fine, in this case it makes sense to keep
> everything together.

Okay, I have dropped it from my config branch.

> I'm also planning to have multiple new SoC targets in 6.17 and
> would put them into a separate branch that does not contain the
> dts changes for the existing SoCs.
> 
> For the pull request that Ben sent, there were a couple of
> mistakes, I'll reply on that separately. It probably would made
> more sense to send the patches to soc at lists.linux.dev (note
> that the soc at kernel.org address got renamed but they still
> both work) than to send a pull request this time.

Is that a general comment btw? If there are other people coming in with
new platforms should I ask them to send patches to soc at lists.linux.dev
instead of a PR for their first time?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20250703/f48f9411/attachment.sig>