Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: configs: drop unused BACKLIGHT_GENERIC option

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: ZHIZHIKIN Andrey <andrey.zhizhikin@leica-geosystems.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	"linux@armlinux.org.uk" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"nicolas.ferre@microchip.com" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
	"ludovic.desroches@microchip.com"
	<ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
	"tony@atomide.com" <tony@atomide.com>,
	"mripard@kernel.org" <mripard@kernel.org>,
	"wens@csie.org" <wens@csie.org>,
	"jernej.skrabec@siol.net" <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
	"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"tsbogend@alpha.franken.de" <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	"James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com" 
	<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	"deller@gmx.de" <deller@gmx.de>,
	"mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
	"lee.jones@linaro.org" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	"sam@ravnborg.org" <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	"emil.l.velikov@gmail.com" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>,
	"daniel.thompson@linaro.org" <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	arm-soc <arm@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: configs: drop unused BACKLIGHT_GENERIC option
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:44:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1QC+582vyxiGOtE3-17m8rbadtrN4yyaGozOP+fEf-3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR06MB4691A5E1603BBE57F35F3B17A6F40@AM6PR06MB4691.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:48 PM ZHIZHIKIN Andrey
<andrey.zhizhikin@leica-geosystems.com> wrote:
> Hello Arnd,
> > > > Or rather, SoC-specific patches, even to defconfig, should go
> > > > through the specific SoC maintainers. However, there are occasional
> > > > defconfig patches which are more generic or affecting multiple SoCs.
> > > > I just ignore them as the arm64 defconfig is usually handled by the
> > > > arm-soc folk (when I need a defconfig change, I go for
> > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig directly ;)).
> > >
> > > IIRC, the plan was indeed to get defconfig changes through the
> > > platform sub-trees. It is also supposed to be how multi_v5 and
> > > multi_v7 are handled and they will take care of the merge.
> >
> > For cross-platform changes like this one, I'm definitely happy to pick up the
> > patch directly from soc@kernel.org, or from mailing list if I know about it.
>
> Should I collect all Ack's and re-send this series including the list "nobody
> talks about" :), or the series can be picked up as-is?
>
> Your advice would be really welcomed here!

Yes, please do, that makes my life easier. I would apply the patches
for arch/arm and arch/arm64 when you send them to soc@kernel.org,
the others go to the respective architecture maintainers, unless they
want me to pick up the whole series.

      Arnd