From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: scott.branden@broadcom.com (Scott Branden) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:33:31 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL 5/7] Broadcom maintainers changes for 4.8 Part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <1466128575-5378-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20160620055143.GH2329@localhost> <3965618.mynEkqfry0@wuerfel> Message-ID: <5768612B.1010507@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Olof/Rafal On 16-06-20 08:30 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday, June 20, 2016 9:35:53 AM CEST Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: >>> >>> I was asked by Florian to add bcm-kernel-feedback-list@ but indeed he >>> didn't specify if this should be L: entry. >>> [21:24:43] <[florian]> rmilecki: also submit a patch that includes >>> bcm-kernel-feedback-list at broadcom.com in the MAINTAINERS file for >>> BCM5310X >>> [21:36:51] [florian]: I wasn't sure if I'm supposed to do that >>> [21:36:53] i can try I guess >>> >>> I'm afraid this mailing list is closed. Would M: entry work for it? >> >> >> I think M: is better, we have a couple of examples like that (x86 at kernel.org, >> Dept-GELinuxNICDev at qlogic.com, linux-wimax at intel.com, ...). > > Yep, having it as a M: entry would be fine with me as well. Please > respin the patch/branch -- we can apply a patch directly instead of > doing a merge if that's easier for you. If M: is supposed to be used for bcm-kernel-feedback-list then a new patch applied to multiple locations in the MAINTAINERS file would solve the problem. > > > -Olof > Regards, Scott