Message-ID: <988b3fcb-44db-45ca-823b-5ab13206bd04@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 20:26:41 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
 <kishon@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
 André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
 Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
 Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>,
 Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>, Naveen Kumar <mnkumar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: google: Add Google Tensor G5 USB
 PHY

On 05/12/2025 20:11, Roy Luo wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 10:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/12/2025 19:47, Roy Luo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 9:13 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2025 04:54, Roy Luo wrote:
>>>>> Document the device tree bindings for the USB PHY interfaces integrated
>>>>> with the DWC3 controller on Google Tensor SoCs, starting with G5
>>>>> generation (Laguna). The USB PHY on Tensor G5 includes two integrated
>>>>> Synopsys PHY IPs: the eUSB 2.0 PHY IP and the USB 3.2/DisplayPort combo
>>>>> PHY IP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Due to a complete architectural overhaul in the Google Tensor G5, the
>>>>> existing Samsung/Exynos USB PHY binding for older generations of Google
>>>>> silicons such as gs101 are no longer compatible, necessitating this new
>>>>> device tree binding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Why intentionally dropping the tag? How are you handling this patchset?
>>>> Rewrite every time from scratch?
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> I dropped the tag because a new file is being modified in this version,
>>> Although it's just MAINTAINER file but I thought you might also want
>>> to take a look. I wasn't sure if modifying a new file qualifies as
>>> "substantial" so I erred on the side of caution. I should've called it
>>> out specifically in the change log. Sorry for the inconvenience.
>>
>> 1. so just squeeze that change into second patch and no need to ask for
>> re-review
> 
> That's a fair point. I will be more mindful of the review overhead
> going forward.
> 
>> 2. You did not read my complain fully, look:
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Roy Luo
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <form letter>
>>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>>>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
>>>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
>>>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
>>>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
>>>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
>>>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
>>>> tags received on the version they apply.
>>>>
>>>> Please read:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>>>>
>>>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>>
>> Where did you address this? You dropped the tag silently.
> 
> Why: a new file is being modified.
> What changed: MAINTAINER
> What's not changed:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/google,lga-usb-phy.yaml

I don't know if you still did not get the problem or you think that I
really need that clear answer. So no, I do not need that clear answer, I
understood with first reply, but you kept explaining instead of
admitting that your changelog needs fixes. So I still do not believe you
understood the problem here and you might repeat the mistake.

I think you need someone in Google to coach in this process, because I
even gave you the exact link describing the process and what was
expected. I even pointed specific paragraph, so you don't need to read
entire file!

I assume you understood what should be done instead in this patchset.
Anyway, my previous tag applies if there were no bindings changes, but I
wasted too much time here to care anymore. The expectation from big
companies is they do not ask community to coach on basic submission
process. It's quite unfair to my spare, personal time after work,
considering how much big company is making. Big company should invest in
this coaching.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists