linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/20] arm64: dts: qcom: Introduce Kaanapali platform device tree

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: <e9b5f1f1-b33e-4bc4-a040-6b42bb95b054@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 13:07:25 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 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,
 Tengfei Fan <tengfei.fan@....qualcomm.com>,
 Qiang Yu <qiang.yu@....qualcomm.com>,
 Manish Pandey <manish.pandey@....qualcomm.com>,
 Ronak Raheja <ronak.raheja@....qualcomm.com>,
 Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@....qualcomm.com>,
 Kamal Wadhwa <kamal.wadhwa@....qualcomm.com>,
 Jyothi Kumar Seerapu <jyothi.seerapu@....qualcomm.com>,
 Prasad Kumpatla <prasad.kumpatla@....qualcomm.com>,
 Hangxiang Ma <hangxiang.ma@....qualcomm.com>,
 Vikash Garodia <vikash.garodia@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] arm64: dts: qcom: Introduce Kaanapali platform
 device tree

On 04/12/2025 12:44, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> No, there is no rule of Cc-ing phone-devel. No one has to do it and you
>> need to stop coming with the impression that it is sanctioned rule by
>> any platform or architecture maintainer.
> 
> Yes, people need to cc relevant mailing lists, that's why we have the

And it was done here.

> lists, and that's how kernel development works. You want relevant
> developers, well, to review the patch.

They can review the patch because all the necessary lists were Cc-ed here.

> 
> "You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy
> of your patch set.  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org should be used by default
> for all patches, but the volume on that list has caused a number of
> developers to tune it out."

And above was fulfilled. Nothing, no single rule says some
"foo-devel-whatever" should be cc-ed. This patchset touches specific
subsystems and concept, and all these were cc-ed.

You really need to stop inventing own rules about undisclosed and hidden
phone-devel (just git grep for phone-devel).


Best regards,
Krzysztof