Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: ufs: mediatek,ufs: add MT8195 compatible and update clock nodes

AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
2025-10-20T11:04:49Z

Il 20/10/25 12:46, Peter Wang (王信友) ha scritto:
> On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 11:56 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> On 20/10/2025 11:44, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2025-10-20 at 10:28 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
>>>>>
>>>>> The main reason for my objection was also clearly stated:
>>>>> "removing these DTS settings will make what was originally
>>>>> a simple task more complicated."
>>>>> I’m not sure if you are quoting only the "In addition"
>>>>> part to take it out of context?
>>>>
>>>> It is not out of context. It was the statement on its own.
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
>>>
>>> However, you haven’t addressed the main reason for my objection.
>>> "removing these DTS settings will make what was originally
>>> a simple task more complicated."
>>
>>
>> You did not object in technical matter at all here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ce0f9785f8f488010cd81adbbdb5ac07742fc988.camel@mediatek.com/
>>
>> Look at this patch.
>>
>> You said nothing about actual change, except blocking the community
>> maintainer. You did not raise any other concerns so what are you
>> speaking about "other main concerns"?
>>
>> Even if such existed, they did not matter, because YOU WROTE ONLY:
>>
>> "The role of MediaTek UFS maintainer is not suitable to be handed
>> over
>> to someone outside of MediaTek."
>>
>> This is what we discuss here.
>>
>> Do you even read your own comments and where did you place them? Do
>> you
>> understand that we discuss emails, not some unsaid or other threads?
>>
>> Look at this:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ce0f9785f8f488010cd81adbbdb5ac07742fc988.camel@mediatek.com/
>>
>>
>>> But it’s clear that you haven’t carefully considered the main
>>> reason for my objection?
>>
>> Main reason for objection? What?
>>
>
> Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
>
> I think you misunderstood—these are different patches.
> This one only changes the maintainer. What I was referring to
> is another patch that removes parts of the DTS setting.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/eb47587159484abca8e6d65dddcf0844822ce99f.camel@mediatek.com/
>
>
> I don’t know who AngeloGioacchino is,

Sorry Peter, but a 10 seconds research on your side would have made you aware of
who I am.

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/MAINTAINERS?h=v6.6#n2346

...then a 60 seconds research would reveal way more than just that about me,
and also your colleagues know me quite a bit :-)

Besides, you don't really need to know who somebody is to make an upstream review:
this is a community, and a good patch may come from old and recognized contributors
as much as from new ones sending their first patch upstream.

> so isn’t it reasonable for
> me to oppose directly changing the maintainer?
> Or do you think everyone should know who AngeloGioacchino is
> and just accept this change?
>
>
> Let’s put it this way: if a strager you don’t know suddenly comes
> to your home and says they’re now the maintainer of your house,
> would you be comfortable with that?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> You are twisting the problem, like anyone denied you being the
>> maintainer.
>>
>> YOU DENIED OTHER PEOPLE!
>>
>> I finish the discussion here, I am considering your explanations
>> intentionally twisting the point thus I find it still harmful
>> behavior.

Krzysztof, many thanks for taking time to defend the community.

Regards,
Angelo

>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>
> I think you’re the one twisting my words.
> What I said was that I oppose people OUTSIDE of MediaTek becoming
> maintainers, not that I oppose other people in GENERAL.
> In fact, I also mentioned that other MediaTek maintainers
> would be joining.
>
>
> Thanks
> Peter
>
>