linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: ufs: mediatek,ufs: add MT8195 compatible and update clock nodes

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4b3d2678d2b724fb53ec7272ef8daf52197d4a0e.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:44:37 +0000
From: Peter Wang (王信友) <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
To: "chu.stanley@...il.com" <chu.stanley@...il.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com"
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
	"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Macpaul Lin (林智斌)
	<Macpaul.Lin@...iatek.com>, "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "alim.akhtar@...sung.com"
	<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "krzk@...nel.org" <krzk@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "matthias.bgg@...il.com"
	<matthias.bgg@...il.com>, "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
	"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "macpaul@...il.com" <macpaul@...il.com>,
	Pablo Sun (孫毓翔) <pablo.sun@...iatek.com>,
	Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group
	<Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com>,
	Bear Wang (萩原惟德) <bear.wang@...iatek.com>,
	Ramax Lo (羅明遠) <Ramax.Lo@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: ufs: mediatek,ufs: add MT8195
 compatible and update clock nodes

On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 10:28 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> > 
> > The main reason for my objection was also clearly stated:
> > "removing these DTS settings will make what was originally
> > a simple task more complicated."
> > I’m not sure if you are quoting only the "In addition"
> > part to take it out of context?
> 
> It is not out of context. It was the statement on its own.

Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,

However, you haven’t addressed the main reason for my objection.
"removing these DTS settings will make what was originally
a simple task more complicated."

> 
> 
> 
> You denied community to participate and now you twist the argument
> like
> you want Mediatek people to be involved. No one denied Mediatek to be
> maintainer.
> 
> It is you who denied community to join the maintainers.
> 
> This is not acceptable and you still do not understand why.

I think I understand your point now, you believe that opposing
this patch means opposing community participation and support, right?
But it’s clear that you haven’t carefully considered the main 
reason for my objection?



> 
> 
> You could apologize and explain your mistakes, but instead you push
> same
> narrative.
> 
> Still a red flag. I will not accept such vendor-like behaviors,
> because
> they significantly harm the community.
> 
> I am very surprised that UFS maintainers did not object to it. This
> should be clearly ostracized.
> 
> 

Sorry, I still don’t quite understand why having people who
know the SoC better maintain the SoC driver would be considered
harmful to the community?
Also, I still don’t see the relation between opposing the
unnecessary complication patch and the downstream?
Can you tell me why I should accept code that I feel is 
unreasonable to be merged? Instead of repeatedly telling me 
that my objection is about downstream or something like that.


> 
> 
> Consider stepping down and choosing them if they better understand
> how
> upstream works.
> 
> As Rob wrote earlier:
> 
> "Sounds like we need a new maintainer then. They clearly don't
> understand that downstream doesn't exist."
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

I must reiterate that I do not oppose patches that are 
beneficial to the community; I only object to patches that are 
not helpful.

Thanks
Peter