linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add compatible for Kaanapali SoC

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: <8c691300-1c5f-4084-9899-bfd178bd9664@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 20:01:24 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>, Will Deacon
 <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 aiqun.yu@....qualcomm.com, tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com,
 trilok.soni@....qualcomm.com, yijie.yang@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add compatible for Kaanapali SoC

On 25/09/2025 08:19, Jingyi Wang wrote:
> Qualcomm Kaanapali SoC includes apps smmu that implements arm,mmu-500,
> which is used to translate device-visible virtual addresses to physical
> addresses. Add compatible for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>
> ---

NAK, 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