Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Time to call it quits for the maintainer summit?

Mark Brown <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:29:36 +0100

Newsgroups	dev.linux.lists.ksummit
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 01:24:20PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 at 01:52, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > or things where the DRM parts of a cross tree series look like they're
> > > being ignored.

> Is there any tag I can put somewhere that for cross-tree patches that
> are just changing and interface, or cleaning up an API change, that we
> give you an Ack without getting one, it's really a pointless bit of
> review theater if something needs changing.

> or can I offer drm-misc commit rights I suppose, but yes we don't have
> a good responsible person for acking non-drm patches, and they can
> fall down the cracks. But if it's something that can get handled via
> another tree, then I'm usually fine with it just going in via that
> tree.

The cases I remember were DRM adding something that was then built on by
ASoC (this will have been something to do with HDMI audio I guess, can't
specifically remember).  I guess for that case whoever's pushing the DRM
side ought to either commit stuff and send a PR or be more proactive in
saying "this is OK for DRM, you should take it".  The usual pattern
would be that you'd see an ack from the relevant maintainer on the patch
and know it was OK to pick it up.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)