linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] MAINTAINERS: add tqml device trees to TQ-Systems entry

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:48:34 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Gregor Herburger <gregor.herburger@...tq-group.com>
Cc:     Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...tq-group.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] MAINTAINERS: add tqml device trees to TQ-Systems
 entry

On 25/09/2023 07:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, at 03:04, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> + Arnd
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:27:02AM +0200, Gregor Herburger wrote:
>>> Update file entries for TQ-Systems Layerscape modules.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gregor Herburger <gregor.herburger@...tq-group.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> I do not have a branch for this file, so you may want to send the
>> change to Arnd directly.
> 
> The MAINTAINERS files can usually go into the same branch
> as arch/arm/mach-*/ and arch/arm64/Kconfig changes. If you have
> nothing for that, merging this one along with the corresponding
> arch/arm64/boot/dts changes is also fine.
> 
> We used to have a separate branch just for the maintainer
> file updates a long time ago, but they rarely cause conflicts.
> 
> Whichever way you end up doing it, please ensure that the person
> sending the pull request or patch addresses it to:soc@...nel.org
> cc:linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org to make it end up in
> patchwork, otherwise I'm more likely to miss it or expect that
> I'll get it as part of the normal pull requests.

Plus, there is no really reason to split such trivial maintainer change
into separate commit.

Best regards,
Krzysztof