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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 64FB9D2FED9 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:38:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=TWEaRNjourAX4Er4GXNOVFDCOPNOZh6Kk+37EtEr8ug=; b=HXDpXfc3t4jC5Ah3k5XXCdYRaL pArNMF+YPnkCvF/aIWEfo+c6K5hSzwxrgnR3EWgOdqmmSttU6cE9XNxe/LSLH6L10iZMjgdkWvodH LLlhpR6kLr9+xp+IboBDf4tZO/lWL/fdaWc9g7VGqlcz9wocwal4ePA4phoRKudr44BeIALolhC6i xj9QmntF/pAxJjviLt04ImjJaYeVYcaZ0B1ef60xPHw2BiUxHI6634CMbK4QWLajbLCMaq6cbSzhJ SVE5qop8hlZgCa5u1GMtfpUfy8re2siepK+eEn7Npw4mba/sNSStlTQMgNqru+NOy642Hbp2Q44Sj skpgCPkg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vknxS-0000000Epj7-1cMm; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:38:34 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([172.234.252.31]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vknxM-0000000EphQ-1fju; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:38:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A184E40A65; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2020C116C6; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:38:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769539107; bh=xnxW/CWgie/RiC6ceA36oB6xfFtPTb0OHKlujCG/RnU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=R5np0NK2ji0Bvsl4dkcDUf6Xv2tMqnpoJLp4Su5Tlndt1VH/kgo9IUEOMlFv3g9hf NWV0vMSiUt0Ty/+U6OkCTNW7gPzsWU9IOwm4NP/q5gZJ4Esj35k51DOxS3iV4/uDUI r0/gFI1VqGmeoEIcPLpLYMl6CMlt+j3gVMklN0OPTIDr57Yo8dQ/9w49avkrhqjMWe XNqSSCWoK8aqFKZcnqXAHKFmUxbuT0758wx7jjFn63jK8Ko/tcSEWTYyh9Lj4B0l5P lEjH0UyOmDHgFdhCsYpefGH9u4MZh4NhGRVvU6hty2mnsoQtj4rt0oK0ZJsPNFyc0I aQrFGI9h1BMXQ== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:38:25 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Russell King (Oracle)" Cc: linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de, alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, andrew@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,06/22] net: stmmac: rk: add SoC specific ->init() method Message-ID: <20260127103825.7fcc86e3@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260127004020.3785641-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20260127081804.64841f65@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260127_103828_477159_8364244A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.07 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:42:05 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > If I'm going to have to split it up just for the sake of reducing the > cost of AI review, Incorrect, as previously stated do not worry about the cost. I was citing the cost as the reason we can't give people open access to the AI bot. > can I ask for a moritorium on other development changes to dwmac-rk > until this is merged? Seems reasonable, as long as you're posting and making active progress we can prioritize merging this work. > As I see it, this is required _because_ of the introduction of AI > review, not because something has actually changed. Can't argue with how you feel. > You have said in the past to me that the 15 patch limit is only > advisory and can be exceeded where it makes sense to, and for this > series, it does make sense. Advisory is too weak. Unless there's a strong reason not to break up the series it should be under 15 patches. This conversation doesn't feel very productive. Let me just apply patches 1-4 and move on :|