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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 20/10/2025 10:13, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-10-19 at 12:19 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> You did.
>>
>> You wrote very clearly here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/eb47587159484abca8e6d65dddcf0844822ce99f.camel@mediatek.com/
>>
>> "In addition, it will require MediaTek to put in extra
>> effort to migrate the kernel. "
>>
> 
> 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.

> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Also you wrote:
>> "The role of MediaTek UFS maintainer is not suitable to be handed
>> over
>> to someone outside of MediaTek."
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ce0f9785f8f488010cd81adbbdb5ac07742fc988.camel@mediatek.com/
>>
>> Holy molly, you really wrote this!
>>
> 
> "The role of MediaTek UFS maintainer is not suitable to be handed
> over to someone outside of MediaTek."
> My main point is that MediaTek’s internal personnel certainly 
> have a better understanding of the SoC architecture than external
> parties.
> Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for maintainers to be internal staff?


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.

> 
> 
> 
>> That's completely unacceptable. You don't understand how upstream
>> development works and you push your downstream narrative which for us
>> does not matter. You also object community led efforts, because you
>> apparently want to control the upstream process.
>>
> 
> I don’t see how this relates to upstream/downstream?
> Aren’t you reading too much into this? My objection is purely
> because I don’t want to complicate a simple matter, not 
> because I object to community-led efforts.
> Please don’t misunderstand my intention.


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.


> 
> 
> 
>> That is red flag.
>>
>> I think you should step down from maintainer position and find more
>> suitable person, who is willing to work with the community, or
>> rethink
>> how upstream process works and understand that your downstream goals
>> do
>> not matter completely.
>>
>> I will be watching closely this and if situation does not improve, I
>> believe we should mark the driver orphaned until we find maintainer
>> caring about community, not about corporate goals.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> 
> Mediatek will add a few more maintainers internally,


Consider stepping down and choosing them if they better understand how
upstream works.

As Rob wrote earlier:

"Sounds like we need a new maintainer then. They clearly don't
understand that downstream doesn't exist."


Best regards,
Krzysztof