From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 21:42:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Replace USB_RCAR_GEN2_PHY by PHY_RCAR_GEN2 In-Reply-To: References: <1430222884-2095-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <3385193.PYJYK5jiMy@wuerfel> Message-ID: <2579991.7Fqv0Atap3@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 12 May 2015 18:30:59 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > I think Simon's question was more about asking what's the proper process > for updating multi_v7_defconfig. > > Should this go through you / arm at kernel.org directly? > Should it go through arm subarchitecture maintainers, causing merge conflicts? I think it should go through subarch maintainers, and we'll handle the conflicts as they arise when merging into the next/defconfig branch. This does mean that it's important to send the defconfig changes separately from other changes if possible, but it's fine to have a branch that touches both platform-specific and generic defconfig files. > BTW, arm at kernel.org isn't documented in MAINTAINERS. Right, that is intentional. We don't want to get Cc'd on 4000 patches per month that get sent to the mailing list for mach-*. By having a maintainer for each subdirectory and letting them decide what to forward to us, we're able to do our job better. Arnd