From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB84EC44515 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:52:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wlrDz-0001H7-7w; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:52:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wlrDf-00013B-1r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:52:01 -0400 Received: from mail-244106.protonmail.ch ([109.224.244.106]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wlrDd-0004hd-AZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:51:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pq.io; s=protonmail3; t=1784566311; x=1784825511; bh=NbtV9KJAWKo+TmeSWqzAjRGuK4rkjSB+Ix/KJYBZb3A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Date:From:To: Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=IbIlncoXNxb+MQkUAWUMZWgrnkH6b2lgBJSC4OkEnTiS0oGmyHM14/Qiz4uyAyMWA FCKNYHJ3kZca1sjAyFuDex3sDyGeAGFAFMzp8g8Vigx9t2dgoshcwdPPgNLWzO54oW XP4bOGQLRG0e48u0cpqzsUQxPAEBMnCgH4hv+EJ66VZbDcxji8wYw4iBGE/mtYfhfU PqDLOq/sGEX+GrMOvv/5F8lM1E79bNCn8KVSpvgORKiaBQo+ctXthCp1Oi9fqJOiH7 qtyyeAszmLf12PrAsEIBnMH9Y6ABBZPuHX7r+2tDJYXomUU58aJH2gpW8E/PH05gtq G7TsIVv6Vjkzg== X-Pm-Submission-Id: 4h3mkr74nrz1DFh1 From: Matthew Jackson To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw/usb/dev-hid: add apple-mighty-mouse In-Reply-To: References: <20260719152318.69501-1-matthew@pq.io> <20260719152318.69501-3-matthew@pq.io> Message-ID: <20260720095147.maydell-reply@pq.io> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:51:47 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=109.224.244.106; envelope-from=matthew@pq.io; helo=mail-244106.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 at 08:22, Peter Maydell wrote: > Reading this comment prompts me to check with you whether you have > read our AI contribution policy, which at present is essentially > a "no AI generated code or text in contributions" policy: > https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-gener= ated-content Thanks Peter, and fair question -- the answer is yes, AI tooling was used in producing this series, so under the current policy I should not have sent it in this form. I apologise for that, and I appreciate you flagging it directly rather than just dropping the patches. To be transparent about what that means for these patches: this work comes out of a project that runs macOS guests on QEMU/KVM, and I use an AI coding assistant in that project. The comment you quoted is a good example -- it's essentially the assistant's working notes shipped verbatim, which is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be in an upstream submission (and, as you say, the development-history narrative doesn't belong there regardless of how it was written). What is *not* AI-derived is the hardware ground truth: the USB descriptors, HID report descriptors and endpoint topology are captured byte-for-byte from real Apple peripherals, and the design decisions (which device to emulate, why Mighty Mouse rather than Magic Trackpad, how it binds in macOS) were mine. But I recognise that doesn't resolve the DCO clause (b) concern about the generated code and text itself, and I don't want to hand-wave that. So I'll withdraw this series for now rather than ask you to review it under a cloud. If I reimplement the device code and comments myself, from the captured hardware descriptors as the spec, would a resubmission be welcome -- or would you rather this category of contribution wait until the AI policy itself is revisited? Not looking to litigate the policy -- just want to be straight about provenance and do the right thing here. Thanks again. -- Matthew