linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox controller bindings for Kaanapali

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: <ab7c3540-fbc5-4c88-9291-0b6435d7c64d@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 19:57:21 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>,
 Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, aiqun.yu@....qualcomm.com,
 tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com, trilok.soni@....qualcomm.com,
 yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox controller
 bindings for Kaanapali

On 09/10/2025 19:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/09/2025 08:23, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>> Document CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
>> Kaanapali, which is compatible with X1E80100, use fallback to indicate
>> this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml | 9 +++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> index f7342d04beec..6f72f78e4b72 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> @@ -15,8 +15,13 @@ description:
>>  
>>  properties:
>>    compatible:
>> -    items:
>> -      - const: qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
>> +    oneOf:
> 
> No, you send conflicting work with Glymur. Just send ONE PATCH.


And replying here the SAME as I said to Sibi:

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 disappointed 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