linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] HID: touchscreen: add himax hid-over-spi driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAAFQd5AN-1FTHZcE1Eja0Jd4iqpDocZSz19F44RxqtvKs6ikeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:57:15 +0900
From: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Tylor Yang <tylor_yang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com>, 
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, jingyliang@...omium.org, 
	poyuan_chang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com, hbarnor@...omium.org, 
	jikos@...nel.org, wuxy23@...ovo.com, conor+dt@...nel.org, luolm1@...ovo.com, 
	robh+dt@...nel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, poyu_hung@...ax.corp-partner.google.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, 
	benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] HID: touchscreen: add himax hid-over-spi driver

Hi Krzysztof,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:08 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/10/2023 11:18, Tylor Yang wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This patch series adds the driver for Himax HID-over-SPI touchscreen ICs.
> > This driver takes a position in [1], it intends to take advantage of SPI
> > transfer speed and HID interface.
> >
>
> Dear Google/Chromium folks,
>
> As a multi-billion company I am sure you can spare some small amount of
> time/effort/money for internal review before using community for this
> purpose. I mean reviewing trivial issues, like coding style, or just
> running checkpatch. You know, the obvious things.
>
> There is no need to use expensive time of community reviewers to review
> very simple mistakes, the ones which we fixed in Linux kernel years ago
> (also with automated tools). You can and you should do it, before
> submitting drivers for community review.
>
> Thanks in advance.

First of all, I can understand your sentiment towards some of the
patches being in a very rough shape. As a community we have large
volumes of patches to review and it would be really helpful if new
contributors followed some basic simple steps, as described in our
"Submitting patches" page...

That said, it's not a fair assumption that there are no steps taken to
offload the upstream reviewers community by the corporate
contributors. We usually do have basic internal pre-reviews for
patches coming from partners and even a pre-review bot (CoP) that can
automate some of the checks such as checkpatch or bisectability. But
as others said in this thread, we don't control our partners and they
are free to send the patches just directly to the mailing lists if
they want to do so. In a similar way, not everyone in ChromeOS is
super experienced with upstream submissions, so sometimes they may not
be aware of the best practices, etc.

I haven't seen the patch in question, but I'd assume it's more like an
exception rather than a usual pattern, so I'd appreciate it if we
could avoid aggressive responses like that and try to solve the
problems in a more productive way. Just a simple response with a link
to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
wouldn't really cost you much, or actually even less than the entire
litany in this email.

Let's be nice to each other. Thanks.

Best regards,
Tomasz