linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding

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

Message-ID: <729612c2-785a-4fd8-979c-5e2661cb6d3e@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 19:56:23 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@....qualcomm.com>, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox
 controller binding

On 24/09/2025 23:48, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Document CPU Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
> Glymur SoCs. It is software compatible with X1E80100 CPUCP mailbox
> controller hence fallback to it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@....qualcomm.com>

This should be squashed with Kaanapali. Commit msg is the same. Contents
is the same.

This entire split is just huge churn, huge duplication of work and quite
a lot of review put onto the community. You should have coordinated your
work better.

I am dissapointed because you just don't think about the reviewing
process, about what maintainers should do with that. You just send what
was told you to send.

Explain to us - why do we want to have two 99% same patches sent the
SAME DAY from the same company and do same work - review and applying -
twice, instead of having only one?

Why maintainers should accept this?

Best regards,
Krzysztof