linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/17] dt-bindings: power: apple,pmgr-pwrstate: Add t8112 compatible

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <af7fb166-64e3-6fcd-c270-6dd53bbe96c0@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:39:45 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>, Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>,
        Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Mark Kettenis <kettenis@...nbsd.org>
Cc:     asahi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] dt-bindings: power: apple,pmgr-pwrstate: Add t8112
 compatible

On 14/02/2023 09:43, Hector Martin wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 16.50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/02/2023 03:24, Hector Martin wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2023 20.09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2023 16:41, Janne Grunau wrote:
>>>>> From: Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the apple,t8112-pmgr-pwrstate compatible for the Apple M2 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> This goes after t8103. The sort order logic here is having SoC numeric
>>>>> code families in release order, and SoCs within each family in release
>>>>> order:
>>>>>
>>>>> - t8xxx (Apple HxxP/G series, "phone"/"tablet" chips)
>>>>>   - t8103 (Apple H13G/M1)
>>>>>   - t8112 (Apple H14G/M2)
>>>>> - t6xxx (Apple HxxJ series, "desktop" chips)
>>>>>   - t6000 (Apple H13J(S)/M1 Pro)
>>>>>   - t6001 (Apple H13J(C)/M1 Max)
>>>>>   - t6002 (Apple H13J(D)/M1 Ultra)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that t600[0-2] share the t6000 compatible where the hardware is
>>>>> 100% compatible, which is usually the case in this highly related set
>>>>> of SoCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Missing SoB.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd rather get an r-b, since this is going back into my tree ;)
>>
>> Please follow Linux process which requires SoB chain.
> 
> A SoB is not an r-b. I do not upstream patches that are unreviewed. I
> wrote the patch. Someone needs to review it.
> 
> The extra SoB is redundant because this is going back into my tree, I
> wrote it, and I will be the committer when I apply it. It's a one-liner
> patch. I know what I wrote. Sure we could record Janne's SoB as a
> technicality, but it feels silly. What matters more is that the patch
> gets reviewed, not that on a patch series technicality it ended up being
> Janne who sent it to the list. I could just pull the patch from my own
> branch and then it didn't go through Janne so it doesn't need his SoB.
> But it does need someone's review (because I absolutely refuse to merge
> my own patches without review, although not every maintainer has that
> policy unfortunately, which means there's lots of unreviewed code in the
> kernel).
> 
> Please. Let's cut down on the silliness. Please. We're trying to get
> stuff done here. I'm tired of having to explain every little thing over
> and over and over again. I really am.

Listen, I have no clue whether Janne changed the patch or not. She might
have rebased it or not. The chain expects that anyone touching the patch
must leave SoB. I am not providing my reviewes for patches breaking the
process we have clearly described. I also do not see any problem in
following the process we have - adding SoB whenever you play with a
patch and send it. Entire discussion is silly indeed, instead of just
following the process.

Best regards,
Krzysztof