Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox controller bindings for Kaanapali

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 09/10/2025 19:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/09/2025 08:23, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>> Document CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller for Qualcomm
>> Kaanapali, which is compatible with X1E80100, use fallback to indicate
>> this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml | 9 +++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> index f7342d04beec..6f72f78e4b72 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
>> @@ -15,8 +15,13 @@ description:
>>  
>>  properties:
>>    compatible:
>> -    items:
>> -      - const: qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
>> +    oneOf:
> 
> No, you send conflicting work with Glymur. Just send ONE PATCH.


And replying here the SAME as I said to Sibi:

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 disappointed 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