Re: [PATCH v12 3/5] dt-bindings: display/msm: Document MDSS on QCS8300

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 27/09/2025 08:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 01:34:39PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/09/2025 13:14, Yongxing Mou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2025 9:01 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 07:24:03PM +0800, Yongxing Mou wrote:
>>>>> Document the MDSS hardware found on the Qualcomm QCS8300 platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yongxing Mou <yongxing.mou@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Patch v11 and still basic issues. I am very dissapointed.
>>>>
>>>> <form letter>
>>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>>>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
>>>> versions of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless
>>>> patch changed significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT
>>>> bindings). Tag is "received", when provided in a message replied to you
>>>> on the mailing list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no
>>>> need to repost patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer
>>>> will do that for tags received on the version they apply.
>>>>
>>>> Please read:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>>>>
>>>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>>>> </form letter>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Sorry for the confusion. I did intend to remove the Reviewed-by tag, and 
>>> I mentioned this in the cover letter, but maybe explanation in 
>>> cover-letter was probe not clear at all.
>>>
>>> This patch includes three changes:
>>>
>>> 1.In the displayport-controller compatible property, "items" was changed 
>>> to "contains".
>>> 2.Use "qcom,sa8775p-dp" as fallback.
>>>
>>> These changes might not be considered significant. So I’ll be more 
>>> careful next time. Thanks~
>>
>>
>> I really do not expect v12 to receive so significant changes in the
>> first place. If you keep sending us buggy code, which then you keep
>> changing after review, I will just not do the review. It's easier for me
>> to wait for v20...
> 
> I'm not sure how to react to this missage. The changes reflect the


This message represents my annoyance with low quality submissions from
Qualcomm, which needs multiple iterations and often apply tag, then
change significantly thus drop the tag or completely ignore the review
tag. And I review again.. and tag is dropped again because patch was
again seriously reworked. Or even without serious rework - Qualcomm
authors drop the tags, just "because".

~2 months ago simple patch from Qualcomm required three involvements
from DT maintainers, because even trivial patch was being continuously
changed and author was dropping or ignoring review tags.



> process in other patchsets and in my understanding on how to describe
> the particular hardware block. The changes were reflected in the
> changelog. If you plan to review this patchset once you get back from
> your vacation, that's fine. If you don't plan to, I can ask Yongxing to
> send v20 just for that number.

Solution for me could be to ignore Qualcomm patches till they reach some
sort of maturity.

I am not planning to review this patch, because:
1. I already reviewed it, so not really necessary, but even if I wanted:
2. It is gone from my inbox...

Best regards,
Krzysztof