Lack of review from Renesas

Lack of review from Renesas

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

Hi,

What just happened - sending a patch to fix in-flight (not applied)
patch instead of just reviewing it [1] - is not acceptable. You should
work together, review each other patches and improve them BEFORE they
got merged.

Why? Because you put unnecessary load on maintainers, you allow
knowingly incomplete or buggy or inefficient patches to get in, you do
not collaborate in open source. And I really do not care about your
patch count

If this is how @renesas.com submissions work, I will stop trusting them
and assume your patches are unreviewed internally and buggy.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1771344527.git.tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1404 bytes --]

Hi Krzysztof,

adding some relevant people...

> What just happened - sending a patch to fix in-flight (not applied)
> patch instead of just reviewing it [1] - is not acceptable. You should
> work together, review each other patches and improve them BEFORE they
> got merged.

Did this happen multiple times now? Or was it the first time? I agree it
should be avoided.

> Why? Because you put unnecessary load on maintainers, you allow
> knowingly incomplete or buggy or inefficient patches to get in, you do
> not collaborate in open source.

The opposite is true. There is not just "Renesas". Renesas has multiple
divisions, and as you surely know, within bigger companies it can be
complicated to work together internally, think of a division in Europe
and one in Japan. So, the connection point for these divisions is
actually the public lists. We do this development *in the open*. And,
yes, sometimes shit happens.

> And I really do not care about your patch count

Wrong assumption. Nobody here cares about patch count, we want to
support hardware, that's all.

> If this is how @renesas.com submissions work, I will stop trusting them
> and assume your patches are unreviewed internally and buggy.

I told you more than once that it is perfectly fine for us if you skip
reviews until peolpe you trust (e.g. Geert or me) have reviewed them.
Why don't you just do it?

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Wolfram Sang]

Hi Krzysztof,

> I told you more than once that it is perfectly fine for us if you skip
> reviews until peolpe you trust (e.g. Geert or me) have reviewed them.

Can we agree on this now or do we need further discussion?

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/03/2026 13:31, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>> I told you more than once that it is perfectly fine for us if you skip
>> reviews until peolpe you trust (e.g. Geert or me) have reviewed them.
> 
> Can we agree on this now or do we need further discussion?
> 

No problem, I will be marking patches as N/A in patchwork. Just have in
mind that they will not re-appear on the queue and pinging won't work,
because it does not change status of Patchwork.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/03/2026 15:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/03/2026 13:31, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>>> I told you more than once that it is perfectly fine for us if you skip
>>> reviews until peolpe you trust (e.g. Geert or me) have reviewed them.
>>
>> Can we agree on this now or do we need further discussion?
>>
> 
> No problem, I will be marking patches as N/A in patchwork. Just have in
> mind that they will not re-appear on the queue and pinging won't work,
> because it does not change status of Patchwork.

That's pretty convenient actually, thanks for the idea of less work.
Just dropped three unreviewed patches from Renesas from DT Patchwork,
one even waiting for more than a week.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]


> That's pretty convenient actually, thanks for the idea of less work.

Yes, you having less work is in deed the whole idea.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

Hi Krzysztof,

> No problem, I will be marking patches as N/A in patchwork. Just have in
> mind that they will not re-appear on the queue and pinging won't work,
> because it does not change status of Patchwork.

Okay, if changing status is the only way to get attention: can I then
get the patchwork permission to change the status when we think they are
ready?

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Lack of review from Renesas

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]


> Okay, if changing status is the only way to get attention: can I then
> get the patchwork permission to change the status when we think they are
> ready?

A maybe simpler idea is to mark the patches as "NeedsAck" instead of
"NotApplicable". This way, they stay in the list but you can still
ignore them until the review counter goes non-zero.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]