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

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-10-20T09:56:56Z

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.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> You denied community to participate and now you twist the argument
>> like
>> you want Mediatek people to be involved. No one denied Mediatek to be
>> maintainer.
>>
>> It is you who denied community to join the maintainers.
>>
>> This is not acceptable and you still do not understand why.
>
> I think I understand your point now, you believe that opposing
> this patch means opposing community participation and support, right?

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?

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> You could apologize and explain your mistakes, but instead you push
>> same
>> narrative.
>>
>> Still a red flag. I will not accept such vendor-like behaviors,
>> because
>> they significantly harm the community.
>>
>> I am very surprised that UFS maintainers did not object to it. This
>> should be clearly ostracized.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I still don’t quite understand why having people who
> know the SoC better maintain the SoC driver would be considered
> harmful to the community?

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