Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] add Voyager board support

Arnd Bergmann
2025-07-03T15:32:32Z

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@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@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@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.

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.

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@lists.linux.dev (note
that the soc@kernel.org address got renamed but they still
both work) than to send a pull request this time.

Arnd