From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 19:42:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Replace USB_RCAR_GEN2_PHY by PHY_RCAR_GEN2 Message-Id: <2579991.7Fqv0Atap3@wuerfel> List-Id: References: <1430222884-2095-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <3385193.PYJYK5jiMy@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: 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@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@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