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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

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
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