From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>,
jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org,
conor+dt@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 19:56:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <729612c2-785a-4fd8-979c-5e2661cb6d3e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250924144831.336367-1-sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>
On 24/09/2025 23:48, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Document CPU Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
> Glymur SoCs. It is software compatible with X1E80100 CPUCP mailbox
> controller hence fallback to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com>
This should be squashed with Kaanapali. Commit msg is the same. Contents
is the same.
This entire split is just huge churn, huge duplication of work and quite
a lot of review put onto the community. You should have coordinated your
work better.
I am dissapointed because you just don't think about the reviewing
process, about what maintainers should do with that. You just send what
was told you to send.
Explain to us - why do we want to have two 99% same patches sent the
SAME DAY from the same company and do same work - review and applying -
twice, instead of having only one?
Why maintainers should accept this?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-09 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-24 14:48 [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Document Glymur CPUCP mailbox controller binding Sibi Sankar
2025-10-02 0:25 ` Rob Herring (Arm)
2025-10-09 10:56 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=729612c2-785a-4fd8-979c-5e2661cb6d3e@kernel.org \
--to=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jassisinghbrar@gmail.com \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox