linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-tsens: Document the Glymur temperature Sensor

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: <e9f67f33-40d5-48b7-b779-47538d48d146@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 20:00:13 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pankaj Patil <pankaj.patil@....qualcomm.com>, amitk@...nel.org,
 thara.gopinath@...il.com, rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
 rui.zhang@...el.com, lukasz.luba@....com, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-tsens: Document the Glymur
 temperature Sensor

On 20/09/2025 21:36, Pankaj Patil wrote:
> From: Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi <quic_manafm@...cinc.com>
> 
> Document the Temperature Sensor (TSENS) on Glymur Platform.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi <quic_manafm@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Patil <pankaj.patil@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> Fixed to sort entry in alphabetical order.
> 

No, conflicting patch with Kaanapali, without any reason. Squash the
patches.

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, sent in completely separate patchsets
so any simplified review will not be possible, and do same work - review
and applying - twice, instead of having only one?

Why maintainers should accept this?

Best regards,
Krzysztof