Message-ID: <b825fbfa-8f9c-4a7d-abd9-b9293edf5863@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:42:33 +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 21:18, Roy Luo wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 11:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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 admitted that my changelog needs fixes in my first reply.
> "I should've called it out specifically in the change log. Sorry for the
> inconvenience.".
> Maybe you think I didn't read through because my reply was placed
> before the <form letter> section, but that's a misunderstanding.
> I did read through the paragraph, that's why I mentioned the
> changelog in my first reply.
> 
> I also misunderstood your question of "Where did you address
> this?". If you were asking where this should have been addressed,
> obviously the answer is to address it in the changelog,
> but I thought that was already made clear in the first reply and
> you might be asking for a clear answer.
> 
>>
>> 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 appreciate you pointing out the specific paragraph, I understand
> you're going above and beyond here. I did read and understand
> what should've been done instead for this patch.


Ack, understood. Apologies for my previous over agitated email. That was
not professional of me.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists