Re: [PATCH 5/5] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for Samsung Exynos8855 SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 15/06/2026 10:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/06/2026 10:04, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> Thanks Linus for your review
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 12:51 PM
>>> To: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
>>> Cc: krzk@kernel.org; peter.griffin@linaro.org; robh@kernel.org;
>>> conor+dt@kernel.org; linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> gpio@vger.kernel.org; hajun.sung@samsung.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for Samsung Exynos8855
>>> SoC
>>>
>>> Hi Alim,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 6:11 PM Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add maintainers entry for the Samsung Exynos8855 SoC based platforms
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
>>> (...)
>>>> +SAMSUNG EXYNOS8855 SoC SUPPORT
>>>> +M:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
>>>> +L:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-
>>> subscribers)
>>>> +L:     linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
>>>> +S:     Maintained
>>>> +F:     arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos8855*
>>>
>>> If you really want to single out a single platform like this (and I don't even
>>> know if that is a good idea... how do you keep the big picture in mind?) you
>>> should probably want to also add a wildcard for all the
>>> 8855 device tree files.
>>>
>> I am also not sure, just followed what was done historically, other Exynos8855 file will get added once they
>> are posted for review, e.g. clock driver.
>> Let me discuss with Krzk during OSS (Mumbai) and see how do we handle this or any other better ways.
>>
> 
> You are Alim already reviewer for entire Samsung, so not sure if this is
> beneficial but I also do not mind.
> 
> For Exynos850 and Google GS101, these were added because folks wanted to
> be involved in these specific bits. In the past I was voting for per-DTS
> file maintainer entry and rejecting per-board maintainer entries. There

Lemme clarify: "voting for in-DTS file maintainer entry", so like we
have for DT bindings, which lists maintainers.

> was even get_maintainers.pl patch doing that. Unfortunately after many
> tries that patch eventually did not land and I got bored bringing it up,
> thus I agreed to earlier NXP approach for per-board or per-SoC maintainers.
> 
> I would like to encourage more people doing meaningful reviews, so if
> having maintainers entry helps that, then I am in.
> 
> Therefore I am fine with this patch as is.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


Best regards,
Krzysztof