Re: [PATCH 5/9] arm: configs: remove obsolete assignments to SND_SOC_ROCKCHIP

Re: [PATCH 5/9] arm: configs: remove obsolete assignments to SND_SOC_ROCKCHIP

[Vincent Mailhol (Arm)]

+CC: soc@lists.linux.dev

On 3/17/26 12:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2026 10:13, Vincent Mailhol (Arm) wrote:
>> CONFIG_SND_SOC_ROCKCHIP was removed in commit cae3cc435db5 ("ASoC:
>> rockchip: Standardize ASoC menu"). However it is still referenced in
>> some defconfigs.
>>
>> Remove any references to CONFIG_SND_SOC_ROCKCHIP.
>>
>> FYI, the suppressions were done using:
>>
>>   git ls-files -z 'arch/*/configs/*defconfig' |\
>>     xargs -0 sed -i -E '/^CONFIG_SND_SOC_ROCKCHIP/d'
>>
>> Fixes: cae3cc435db5 ("ASoC: rockchip: Standardize ASoC menu")
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol (Arm) <mailhol@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
>>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig        | 1 -
> 
> This was already posted:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260313-rockchip-snd-cleanup-v1-1-77d9a953fd1b@schnwalter.eu/
> but just like that patch you did not send it to soc@ (if I am not
> mistaken... CC list is enormous).

OK, I will add soc@lists.linux.dev to the recipient list in v2.

> I think you are mixing here independent works, like kconfig and per-arch
> defconfig changes. Please split these per arch defconfig maintainers -
> patches and patchset, so you won't be Cc-ing 50 addresses.

The config issues which I am addressing are transversal problems so I
was expecting to just get the Acked-by from the other architecture and
have all this go through the same tree.

As I explained in my cover letter, this is not doing any functional changes.

But if this is not acceptable, I will just reduce the scope to arm/arm64
then. Doing a per arch split as you suggested would be too much overhead
(more than what I am ready to invest on this clean-up).


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol

Re: [PATCH 7/9] arm64: defconfig: remove incorrect assignment to IPQ_APSS_5018

[Vincent Mailhol (Arm)]

+CC: soc@lists.linux.dev
+CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
+CC: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@kernel.org>

On 3/17/26 12:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2026 10:13, Vincent Mailhol (Arm) wrote:
>> CONFIG_IPQ_APSS_5018 does not exist and never existed. Remove it.
>>
>> Fixes: 7f0c87348fb5 ("arm64: defconfig: Enable IPQ5018 SoC base configs")
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol (Arm) <mailhol@kernel.org>
>> ---
> 
> Just like try one year ago:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240104133241.2030193-1-ross.burton@arm.com/
> 
> No one will apply it if you do not send the patch to right people.
> multi_vx and arm64 defconfig fall outside of get_maintainers thus policy
> from maintainer soc profile applies.

As you guessed, I used get_maintainers.pl to generate the recipient
list. I am just surprised to hear that the defconfigs fall out of the
usual process. This is a pit fall as shown by the fact that both Ross
and me failed to send it to the right people.

As you pointed in another answer, I saw that the documentation was
updated. I will follow this from now on. Thanks for that!

> This one should be send to platform maintainers, so to qcom.

I will add linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio.

I don't think this should be split though. My series does one thing:
address the warnings from scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh. When a series
have a clear scope which spans other several trees, it is more common to
collect Acked-by tags from the maintainers of the other domains rather
than splitting.

> Other ones: please send all arm and arm64 defconfig changes in one
> patchset to soc folks. Here, at least provide credits with Reported-by
> to Ross.
OK. Although this was re-discovered independently on my side, will add
the Reported-by tag to give proper credit.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol