Re: [PATCH 0/8] add Voyager board support

["Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025, at 15:07, Ben Zong-You Xie wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > Also, there is a patch dependency in this patchset:
>> > Patch 2 <- Patch 4 <- Patch 5 <- Patch 6
>> 
>> How? These are bindings. How DTS can depend on the binding? Do you have
>> akcs from their subsystem maintainers that you are sending it here?
>>
>> Sorry, but no, this should go via their maintainers, unless they did not
>> want to pick it up. Is this the case here?
>
> The dependency chain arises because each of these patches introduces a new file,
> requiring a corresponding update to the MAINTAINERS file.
>
> In v4 [1], Rob and Daniel attempted to merge Patch 4 and Patch 5, respectively,
> but encountered conflicts in the MAINTAINERS file. That's why I specified the
> patch dependencies in v5 and this patchset.
>
> Now, I understand that binding patches are typically handled by subsystem
> maintainers. To prevent the conflicts again, I think I should gather all
> MAINTAINERS file changes into a single patch. Is that right?

Don't overthink that part, the MAINTAINERS file doesn't have to cleanly
bisect, so I'd just create the full entry there in the same patch
that adds the arch/riscv/Kconfig entry.

     Arnd