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

Peter Wang (王信友)
2025-10-20T10:46:55Z

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, 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.
>
> 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