Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:08:23 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.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

On 22/01/2024 05:57, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 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...

I don't really understand why responding to something which is three
months old. Anyway, I talked with Doug on Plumbers about it so things
are more or less clarified, however since two Google folks responded,
let me continue.

> 
> 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

Good to know.

> 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

Unfortunately that's the pattern. I was complaining few times about very
poor quality of some patches from some partners before writing that email.

Just to clarify: all the complains are about missing basic stuff, like
running basic tools. They don't even require internal review by humans.

> 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.

Simple response to docs don't work. Docs are quite long and contributors
questioned here just don't read them in details.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists