Re: [PATCH 06/20] arm64: dts: qcom: kaanapali: Add USB support for Kaanapali SoC

Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-09-25T16:49:18Z

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 06:01:15PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > >> From: Ronak Raheja <ronak.raheja@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Add the base USB devicetree definitions for Kaanapali platform. The overall
> > > >> chipset contains a single DWC3 USB3 controller (rev. 200a), SS QMP PHY
> > > >> (rev. v8) and M31 eUSB2 PHY.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ronak Raheja <ronak.raheja@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> 1 file changed, 155 insertions(+)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Second try, without HTML:
> > > >
> > > > I really don't understand why you created such huge patchset. Year
> > > > ago, two years ago, we were discussing it already and explained that's
> > > > just inflating the patchset without reason.
> > > >
> > > > New Soc is one logical change. Maybe two. Not 18!
> > >
> > > It was previously squashed into the base soc dtsi patch and mark like:
> > > Written with help from Jyothi Kumar Seerapu(added bus), Ronak Raheja
> > > (added USB), Manish Pandey(added SDHCI), Gaurav Kashyap(added crypto),
> > > Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi(added tsens), Qiang Yu(added PCIE) and
> > > Jinlong Mao(added coresight).
> > >
> > > While it is over 4000+ lines when we squash it together.

As a reviewer I'd totally prefer a single 4k line DT, because then I can
navigate through it while reviewing.

> >
> > That's why you send one node per patch? Multiple huge patch bombs land
> > the same time from Qualcomm, with patches adding one node. It's like
> > the "no more patch bombs" discussion and rule never existed (yeah, I
> > know it was removed but the spirit of keeping maintainers mailboxes
> > sane remains).
> >
> >
> > > Also as offline reviewed with Bjorn, he suggested us to split out the
> > > USB and other parts.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Not one patch per node or feature.
> > > >
> > > > This hides big picture, makes difficult to review everything,
> > > > difficult to test. Your patch count for LWN stats doesn't matter to
> > > > us.
> > >
> > > With the current splitting, the different author as each co-developer
> > > can get the meaningful LWN stats.>
> >
> > We don't care about your LWN stats.
> >
> > Sending stuff like this for your stats, means that community and
> > reviewers pay with their time.
> >
> > This is really just selfish. No care how maintainers need to scroll
> > through their mailboxes.
> >
> > > > NAK and I'm really disappointed I have to repeat the same review .
> > > Currently, there are 10 SoC DTSI patches sent, structured as follows:
> >
> > Why did you ignore all the feedback from 2024 and 2023? Every year it
> > has to be repeated?
> >
> > >
> > > SoC initial
> > > Base MTP board
> > > SoC PCIe0
> > > SoC SDC2
> > > SoC USB
> > > SoC remoteproc
> > > SoC SPMI bus, TSENS, RNG, QCrypto, and Coresight
> > > SoC additional features
> > > SoC audio
> > > SoC CAMSS
> > > SoC video
> > >
> > > Which parts would you prefer to squash into pls?
> >
> > I made very clear statements year and two years ago. We also discussed
> > it on IRC multiple times. Can you join discussions instead of ignoring
> > them?
>
> (Apologies for lack of trimming, typos, HTML - using phone)
>
> ...and you sent both inflated, LWN-stats-gaming huge patchbombs
> (Kaanapali and Glymur) three days before the merge window starts.
> Community works for free, doesn't it?

Most of the maintainers have closed their trees, so it doesn't matter.

--
With best wishes
Dmitry