Re: [GIT PULL 1/7] dt-bindings: Changes for v7.1-rc1

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-31T09:50:22Z

On 31/03/2026 10:25, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
>>> dt-bindings: phy: tegra-xusb: Document Type C support
>>
>> No acks, but that is waiting for one month so it is fine.
>
> It's got a Reviewed-by from Rob and there were no corresponding driver
> changes associated with it. There's literally no reason for this to go
> in through a subsystem tree.

There are reasons - process and technical:
1. It's a subsystem maintainer's patch, not yours. You rather should
have reason to take someone else's patches.

2. Conflict in that file.

>
>>> dt-bindings: clock: tegra124-dfll: Convert to json-schema
>>> dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: tegra: Fix reg entries
>>> dt-bindings: arm: tegra: Add missing compatible strings
>>> dt-bindings: phy: tegra: Document Tegra210 USB PHY
>>> dt-bindings: memory: Add Tegra210 memory controller bindings
>>> dt-bindings: memory: tegra210: Mark EMC as cooling device
>>
>> That's even my subsystem and I did not ack it. You did not even sent it
>> to me as requested by MAINTAINERS file (+dt is ignore alias), so
>> obviously I did not even had a chance to ack it.
>
> Ugh... really? I was Cc'ed to you as a DT maintainer as well as the
> devicetree mailing list, so I'm sure you've seen it. This had also been

Really, you are supposed to use get_maintainers.pl. Not invent the CC
list, not come with own filtered list.

I understand that my non dt address disappears when running
get_maintainers.pl on entire set.

But if you sent that patch targetting subsystem instead of combining 6
or 7 subsystems at once, it would pop up.

And yes, you are not supposed to mix 7 different subsystems in single
patchset. That's basic!

But sure, let's skip memory controllers patch cc list and:

> reviewed by Rob a long time ago, and honestly, it's also quite trivial.
> It's been on the list for a month and there were no objections, so it
> does pass all of the criteria you mentioned before.

No objections because you did not cc people. How can you claim "no
objections from person foo" if you do not cc person "foo", because you
do not use get_maintainers.pl?

Look, find me here phy mantainers:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260223143305.3771383-7-thierry.reding@kernel.org/

>
>> And we even had few days ago talk were I explained you how these
>> bindings must go. Seeing pull request completely ignoring that
>> discussion is just huge surprise.
>>
>> No, it cannot go in. Send patches to proper maintainers first.
>
> Stop making these baseless accusations, Krzysztof. You were on Cc and

Not using get_maintainers.pl so not ccing right address is not baseless.
This is the fact.

Neither phy, nor interrupts, nor clocks were sent to right people.

You mixed 6 or 7 different subsystems in on patchset, but you call my
remarks as baseless. You use several adjectives "trivial", "baseless",
but no actual facts.

Final commentary:
Stop taking patches from other subsystems, just because you want to
streamline your DTS. You are bypassing other subsystems review, other
people trees, and that's not acceptable.

Best regards,
Krzysztof