Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's roleriscv-document_patchwork_more

Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was Palmer in one of
the weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we
should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork
instance plays in patch acceptance.

Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end.

Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---
CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
CC: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
CC: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
index 1d1fb885326bd6..032109fdf523a4 100644
--- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
+++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
@@ -16,6 +16,20 @@ tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
 principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
 inclusion in the kernel.
 
+Patchwork
+---------
+
+RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked:
+
+https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/
+
+Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as
+they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the
+RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been
+detected as a fix.
+Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most
+cases will need to be resubmitted.
+
 Submit Checklist Addendum
 -------------------------
 We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the