Message-ID: <de0f7848-1fe7-451f-b48b-e20fbf3d0c2b@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:44:23 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
 Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>,
 Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/V2N SoC

On 27/03/2025 17:44, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> You did not object to last discussion about this (a month ago) - neither
>> to my comments nor to resolution - so this patchset repeating the same
> 
> Because I cannot follow every Renesas patch series there is. You are
> long enough around to know that large companies have different entities,
> groups whatsoever. It is quite a challenge to streamline this via one
> group, we need to share work. We do try hard, though, and have a
> ARM/RISC-V/RENESAS ARCHITECTURE maintainer. Geert does a *hell of a job*
> getting all these submission into shape, and he surely does not accept
> code thrown over the wall. And geez, the patch series was just sent
> yesterday, you didn't give us even time to raise the issue internally.
> 
>> pattern from the same folks while ignoring previous talk is
>> contradicting "not too bad at fixing stuff".
> 
> First, being a maintainer myself, I do understand the frustration of
> patch review not being honored. I can also agree that this series did
> not work out perfectly. But that does not mean that we don't care, in
> general.  Despite all imperfection and possibly different opinions, we
> try hard to be a good citizen and spend considerable time on doing
> things right. Accusing us of throwing just "code over the wall" because
> there is an issue somewhere which hasn't been worked on in one month is
> plain unfair.
We do not speak about same things. I speak of review being ignored for
multiple revisions in one patchset and then another patchset sending
exactly the same pattern.

Previous patchset receive my review about this. Thierry ignored it and
send v2 with same code. Then v3 with exactly the same code, but with a
remark in cover letter "but such a change is out of
scope for this patchset."

And now Pabhakar sends the same pattern.

Each of these contributors were not changing here anything, it's like
not their job. It looks like this will never get fixed, because each
person wants to just get their stuff merged, so let's ignore the
reviewers comments.

That's not how upstreaming works - you need to change some things, fix
some stuff, add more code, if you want to add your independent features.
That is how upstream was always. The easiest example is - one new driver
for some completely new feature is fine. Second new driver for similar
new feature receives feedback: please create subsystem to have common
set/handling of that new thingies.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists