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

[Vincent Mailhol (Arm)]

+CC: soc at 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 at 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 at 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