linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/8] dt-bindings: leds: register-bit-led: Add active-low property

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <24d1b652-e3bc-5638-facb-231a4bcaf9c6@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:42:17 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        soc@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/8] dt-bindings: leds: register-bit-led: Add
 active-low property

On 23/02/2023 21:59, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:48 PM Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 February 2023 14:22:52 Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Allow to define inverted logic (0 - enable LED, 1 - disable LED) via
>>>>> active-low property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/register-bit-led.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Needs a DT Ack (now Cc:ed)
>>>
>>> I can't do anything with this set until we have a DT Ack.
>>>
>>> If you don't receive one soon, I'd suggest resending the set again with
>>> all of the DT people on Cc that it should have been sent to in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> (Re)Sending one email multiple times is against email etiquette,
>> moreover it is spam technique and reason for marking sender on the
>> blacklist.
> 
> No problem on the kernel mailing lists actually, we love to mail
> bomb each other here. Yeah maybe we are a bit weird :/
> 
>> Moreover I have already sent it more than one time. DT people are known
>> to not respond to patches and pull requests and I have no motivation to
>> send reminder emails for them for more than half of year.

Is this a joke? You got here response within one day!

Sent: 18th of August
Reviewed-by: 19th of August

https://lore.kernel.org/all/f635d5a7-6817-cd62-e395-63e346775716@linaro.org/

You ignored the tag and then ignored the process and not Cc'ed us. Yet
you complain that someone did not respond to your emails. Really?


>>
>> So I would suggest to not send emails to people who just do not want to
>> receive or read emails. It is logical reaction.
>>
>> This patch is here for more than 6 months, so I do not see reason why to
>> wait for Godot. Rather move forward than stepping at the same position.
> 
> I understand that it is annoying.
> 
> In my experience Krzysztof and Rob (now added on To) are usually
> quite responsive and helpful, so something must have made them
> miss it I think.
> 
> As subsystem maintainer, if the DT reviewers haven't said anything
> in ~2 weeks I tend to sanity check the binding as best I can and then
> merge it. The bigger and more complex it is the more hesitant I get to
> do this...

Yeah... this patch was never sent to us, thus regardless how hard we
work, it would be quite difficult to answer emails which we never received.

Best regards,
Krzysztof