[PATCH 7/9] arm64: defconfig: remove incorrect assignment to IPQ_APSS_5018

[Vincent Mailhol (Arm)]

+CC: soc at lists.linux.dev
+CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson at kernel.org>
+CC: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio at kernel.org>

On 3/17/26 12:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/03/2026 10:13, Vincent Mailhol (Arm) wrote:
>> CONFIG_IPQ_APSS_5018 does not exist and never existed. Remove it.
>>
>> Fixes: 7f0c87348fb5 ("arm64: defconfig: Enable IPQ5018 SoC base configs")
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol (Arm) <mailhol at kernel.org>
>> ---
> 
> Just like try one year ago:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240104133241.2030193-1-ross.burton@arm.com/
> 
> No one will apply it if you do not send the patch to right people.
> multi_vx and arm64 defconfig fall outside of get_maintainers thus policy
> from maintainer soc profile applies.

As you guessed, I used get_maintainers.pl to generate the recipient
list. I am just surprised to hear that the defconfigs fall out of the
usual process. This is a pit fall as shown by the fact that both Ross
and me failed to send it to the right people.

As you pointed in another answer, I saw that the documentation was
updated. I will follow this from now on. Thanks for that!

> This one should be send to platform maintainers, so to qcom.

I will add linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio.

I don't think this should be split though. My series does one thing:
address the warnings from scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh. When a series
have a clear scope which spans other several trees, it is more common to
collect Acked-by tags from the maintainers of the other domains rather
than splitting.

> Other ones: please send all arm and arm64 defconfig changes in one
> patchset to soc folks. Here, at least provide credits with Reported-by
> to Ross.
OK. Although this was re-discovered independently on my side, will add
the Reported-by tag to give proper credit.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol