AI-assisted review

AI-assisted review

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief
description of how it works.

It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a
patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a
review then adds its comments to its database.

A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update
the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make
it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
reviews to actually create to create a voice.

Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably.
But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even
if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine
10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.

I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask me here.

I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools
for code review.

Regards,
Simon

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1992 bytes --]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
> AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief
> description of how it works.
> 
> It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
> review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a
> patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a
> review then adds its comments to its database.
> 
> A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
> doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update
> the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
> handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make
> it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> 
> Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably.
> But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even
> if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine
> 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> 
> I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask me here.
> 
> I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools
> for code review.

And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet have
an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was making
on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't see
any problems".

And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been posting
reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is that
the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the agent
one is using.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: AI-assisted review

[Michal Simek]

On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
>> AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief
>> description of how it works.
>>
>> It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
>> review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a
>> patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a
>> review then adds its comments to its database.
>>
>> A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
>> doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update
>> the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
>> handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make
>> it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
>> reviews to actually create to create a voice.
>>
>> Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably.
>> But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even
>> if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine
>> 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
>>
>> I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask me here.
>>
>> I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools
>> for code review.
> 
> And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet have
> an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was making
> on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't see
> any problems".
> 
> And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
> reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been posting
> reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is that
> the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the agent
> one is using.
> 

Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another topic.
I think at the end of day it is about rules and creating u-boot specific
review prompts as it is done for Linux.
https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts

I don't think that make sense to host it out of u-boot repo because even
we have some rules written in documentation. And it is up to everybody if they 
want to use this agent/model or at the end if this is something what should run
as the part of CI or so. It is just about rules and extending that rules to 
cover common mistakes.
Because truth is that after that years with project we see the same issues again 
and again. Formatting issues, broken kernel-doc, headers, etc.

The first pass can be simply read current documentation and covert it to new 
U-Boot rules and start with it. This should generated solid base for start.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2690 bytes --]

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
> > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief
> > > description of how it works.
> > > 
> > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
> > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a
> > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a
> > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> > > 
> > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
> > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update
> > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
> > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make
> > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> > > 
> > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably.
> > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even
> > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine
> > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> > > 
> > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask me here.
> > > 
> > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools
> > > for code review.
> > 
> > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet have
> > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was making
> > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't see
> > any problems".
> > 
> > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
> > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been posting
> > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is that
> > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the agent
> > one is using.
> > 
> 
> Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another topic.

Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is
a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here
I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.

I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: AI-assisted review

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief
> > > > description of how it works.
> > > >
> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a
> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a
> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> > > >
> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update
> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make
> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably.
> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even
> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine
> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask me here.
> > > >
> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools
> > > > for code review.
> > >
> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet have
> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was making
> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't see
> > > any problems".
> > >
> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been posting
> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is that
> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the agent
> > > one is using.
> > >
> >
> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another topic.
>
> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is
> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here
> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
>
> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.

I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).

Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.

Regards,
Simon

Re: AI-assisted review

[Josh Law]

On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
>> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
>brief
>> > > > description of how it works.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
>> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps
>a
>> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does
>a
>> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
>> > > >
>> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
>> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
>update
>> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
>> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to
>make
>> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
>> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
>> > > >
>> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
>considerably.
>> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
>even
>> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
>imagine
>> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
>> > > >
>> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can
>ask me here.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
>tools
>> > > > for code review.
>> > >
>> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet
>have
>> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
>making
>> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
>> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't
>see
>> > > any problems".
>> > >
>> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
>> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
>posting
>> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
>that
>> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
>agent
>> > > one is using.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
>topic.
>>
>> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is
>> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
>> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here
>> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
>>
>> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
>
>I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
>then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
>to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
>'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
>etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
>most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
>
>Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
>is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
>
>Regards,
>Simon
>

Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question

How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI

Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"

Or would it be like

"AI reviewed this and it looks fine"

Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)

Thanks!

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4348 bytes --]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >Hi Tom,
> >
> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
> >brief
> >> > > > description of how it works.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps
> >a
> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does
> >a
> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
> >update
> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to
> >make
> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
> >considerably.
> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
> >even
> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
> >imagine
> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can
> >ask me here.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
> >tools
> >> > > > for code review.
> >> > >
> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet
> >have
> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
> >making
> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't
> >see
> >> > > any problems".
> >> > >
> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
> >posting
> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
> >that
> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
> >agent
> >> > > one is using.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
> >topic.
> >>
> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is
> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here
> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
> >>
> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
> >
> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
> >
> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Simon
> >
> 
> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
> 
> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
> 
> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
> 
> Or would it be like
> 
> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
> 
> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)

That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
something already.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: AI-assisted review

[Josh Law]

On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>wrote:
>> >Hi Tom,
>> >
>> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am
>doing
>> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
>> >brief
>> >> > > > description of how it works.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
>'patman
>> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
>perhaps
>> >a
>> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch,
>does
>> >a
>> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry,
>it
>> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
>> >update
>> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert
>in
>> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt
>to
>> >make
>> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
>> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
>> >considerably.
>> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
>> >even
>> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
>> >imagine
>> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you
>can
>> >ask me here.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
>> >tools
>> >> > > > for code review.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not
>yet
>> >have
>> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
>> >making
>> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
>> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent
>didn't
>> >see
>> >> > > any problems".
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first
>pass
>> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
>> >posting
>> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
>> >that
>> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
>> >agent
>> >> > > one is using.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
>> >topic.
>> >>
>> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale
>is
>> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
>> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor
>here
>> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
>> >>
>> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
>> >
>> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
>> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
>> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
>> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
>> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
>> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
>> >
>> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
>> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Simon
>> >
>> 
>> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
>> 
>> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
>> 
>> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
>> 
>> Or would it be like
>> 
>> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
>> 
>> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
>
>That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
>bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
>something already.
>
>

Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different

maintainers usually say:
"AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with
all of AIs comments

The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you
say why it isn't a bug

I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.

Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.

But most projects do generally ban AI anything.

Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like solution.

Maybe we could talk about it?

Thanks!

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5745 bytes --]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >wrote:
> >> >Hi Tom,
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am
> >doing
> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
> >> >brief
> >> >> > > > description of how it works.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
> >'patman
> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
> >perhaps
> >> >a
> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch,
> >does
> >> >a
> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry,
> >it
> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
> >> >update
> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert
> >in
> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt
> >to
> >> >make
> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
> >> >considerably.
> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
> >> >even
> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
> >> >imagine
> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you
> >can
> >> >ask me here.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
> >> >tools
> >> >> > > > for code review.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not
> >yet
> >> >have
> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
> >> >making
> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent
> >didn't
> >> >see
> >> >> > > any problems".
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first
> >pass
> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
> >> >posting
> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
> >> >that
> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
> >> >agent
> >> >> > > one is using.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
> >> >topic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale
> >is
> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor
> >here
> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
> >> >
> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
> >> >
> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Simon
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
> >> 
> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
> >> 
> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
> >> 
> >> Or would it be like
> >> 
> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
> >> 
> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
> >
> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
> >something already.
> >
> >
> 
> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different
> 
> maintainers usually say:
> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with
> all of AIs comments
> 
> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you
> say why it isn't a bug
> 
> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.
> 
> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.
> 
> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
> 
> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like solution.
> 
> Maybe we could talk about it?

Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: AI-assisted review

[Josh Law]

On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>wrote:
>> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Hi Tom,
>> >> >
>> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > Hi,
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am
>> >doing
>> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is
>a
>> >> >brief
>> >> >> > > > description of how it works.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
>> >'patman
>> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
>> >perhaps
>> >> >a
>> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new
>branch,
>> >does
>> >> >a
>> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail
>(sorry,
>> >it
>> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check
>and
>> >> >update
>> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an
>expert
>> >in
>> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an
>attempt
>> >to
>> >> >make
>> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan
>recent
>> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
>> >> >considerably.
>> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for
>me,
>> >> >even
>> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I
>can
>> >> >imagine
>> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or
>you
>> >can
>> >> >ask me here.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these
>new
>> >> >tools
>> >> >> > > > for code review.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not
>> >yet
>> >> >have
>> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I
>was
>> >> >making
>> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between
>"Human
>> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent
>> >didn't
>> >> >see
>> >> >> > > any problems".
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first
>> >pass
>> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has
>been
>> >> >posting
>> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects
>is
>> >> >that
>> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around
>the
>> >> >agent
>> >> >> > > one is using.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is
>another
>> >> >topic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That
>scale
>> >is
>> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from
>someone
>> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor
>> >here
>> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later,
>thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
>> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
>> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
>> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed
>v1,
>> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
>> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
>> >> >
>> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if
>it
>> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards,
>> >> >Simon
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
>> >> 
>> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
>> >> 
>> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
>> >> 
>> >> Or would it be like
>> >> 
>> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
>> >> 
>> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
>> >
>> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
>> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
>> >something already.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different
>> 
>> maintainers usually say:
>> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with
>> all of AIs comments
>> 
>> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you
>> say why it isn't a bug
>> 
>> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.
>> 
>> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.
>> 
>> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
>> 
>> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like
>solution.
>> 
>> Maybe we could talk about it?
>
>Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
>to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
>the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
>busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.
>
>

I could put something into suggestion:


So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the
maintainer, etc etc like Linux,


And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some
maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others
don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"?

But tbh that's up for discussion.

Thanks!

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6987 bytes --]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:29:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >Hi Tom,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > Hi,
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am
> >> >doing
> >> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is
> >a
> >> >> >brief
> >> >> >> > > > description of how it works.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
> >> >'patman
> >> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
> >> >perhaps
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new
> >branch,
> >> >does
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail
> >(sorry,
> >> >it
> >> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check
> >and
> >> >> >update
> >> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an
> >expert
> >> >in
> >> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an
> >attempt
> >> >to
> >> >> >make
> >> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan
> >recent
> >> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
> >> >> >considerably.
> >> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for
> >me,
> >> >> >even
> >> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I
> >can
> >> >> >imagine
> >> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or
> >you
> >> >can
> >> >> >ask me here.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these
> >new
> >> >> >tools
> >> >> >> > > > for code review.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not
> >> >yet
> >> >> >have
> >> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I
> >was
> >> >> >making
> >> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between
> >"Human
> >> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent
> >> >didn't
> >> >> >see
> >> >> >> > > any problems".
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first
> >> >pass
> >> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has
> >been
> >> >> >posting
> >> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects
> >is
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around
> >the
> >> >> >agent
> >> >> >> > > one is using.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is
> >another
> >> >> >topic.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That
> >scale
> >> >is
> >> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from
> >someone
> >> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor
> >> >here
> >> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later,
> >thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
> >> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
> >> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
> >> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed
> >v1,
> >> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
> >> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if
> >it
> >> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Regards,
> >> >> >Simon
> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
> >> >> 
> >> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
> >> >> 
> >> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
> >> >> 
> >> >> Or would it be like
> >> >> 
> >> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
> >> >> 
> >> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
> >> >
> >> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
> >> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
> >> >something already.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different
> >> 
> >> maintainers usually say:
> >> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with
> >> all of AIs comments
> >> 
> >> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you
> >> say why it isn't a bug
> >> 
> >> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.
> >> 
> >> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.
> >> 
> >> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
> >> 
> >> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like
> >solution.
> >> 
> >> Maybe we could talk about it?
> >
> >Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
> >to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
> >the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
> >busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.
> >
> >
> 
> I could put something into suggestion:
> 
> 
> So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the
> maintainer, etc etc like Linux,
> 
> 
> And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some
> maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others
> don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"?
> 
> But tbh that's up for discussion.

Thanks for offering, but it's going to be a large / contentious enough
issue that we haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: AI-assisted review

[Josh Law]

On May 25, 2026 3:39:51 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:29:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>wrote:
>> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> >> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass
><sjg@chromium.org>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >Hi Tom,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > > Hi,
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I
>am
>> >> >doing
>> >> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here
>is
>> >a
>> >> >> >brief
>> >> >> >> > > > description of how it works.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
>> >> >'patman
>> >> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
>> >> >perhaps
>> >> >> >a
>> >> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new
>> >branch,
>> >> >does
>> >> >> >a
>> >> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail
>> >(sorry,
>> >> >it
>> >> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check
>> >and
>> >> >> >update
>> >> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an
>> >expert
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an
>> >attempt
>> >> >to
>> >> >> >make
>> >> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan
>> >recent
>> >> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
>> >> >> >considerably.
>> >> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win
>for
>> >me,
>> >> >> >even
>> >> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I
>> >can
>> >> >> >imagine
>> >> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or
>> >you
>> >> >can
>> >> >> >ask me here.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using
>these
>> >new
>> >> >> >tools
>> >> >> >> > > > for code review.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do
>not
>> >> >yet
>> >> >> >have
>> >> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I
>> >was
>> >> >> >making
>> >> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between
>> >"Human
>> >> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens,
>agent
>> >> >didn't
>> >> >> >see
>> >> >> >> > > any problems".
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least
>first
>> >> >pass
>> >> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has
>> >been
>> >> >> >posting
>> >> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other
>projects
>> >is
>> >> >> >that
>> >> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around
>> >the
>> >> >> >agent
>> >> >> >> > > one is using.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is
>> >another
>> >> >> >topic.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That
>> >scale
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from
>> >someone
>> >> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a
>factor
>> >> >here
>> >> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later,
>> >thanks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit
>and
>> >> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I
>need
>> >> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
>> >> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed
>> >v1,
>> >> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say
>on
>> >> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even
>if
>> >it
>> >> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another
>project.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Regards,
>> >> >> >Simon
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Or would it be like
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
>> >> >
>> >> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that
>other,
>> >> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
>> >> >something already.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different
>> >> 
>> >> maintainers usually say:
>> >> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link,
>with
>> >> all of AIs comments
>> >> 
>> >> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or
>you
>> >> say why it isn't a bug
>> >> 
>> >> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.
>> >> 
>> >> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.
>> >> 
>> >> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
>> >> 
>> >> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like
>> >solution.
>> >> 
>> >> Maybe we could talk about it?
>> >
>> >Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just
>linking
>> >to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is
>on
>> >the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
>> >busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> I could put something into suggestion:
>> 
>> 
>> So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the
>> maintainer, etc etc like Linux,
>> 
>> 
>> And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some
>> maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others
>> don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"?
>> 
>> But tbh that's up for discussion.
>
>Thanks for offering, but it's going to be a large / contentious enough
>issue that we haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately.
>
>

Cool cool, have a nice one!

Thanks!

Re: AI-assisted review

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/05/2026 16:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:29:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>> On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
>>>>
>>>> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like
>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could talk about it?
>>>
>>> Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
>>> to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
>>> the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
>>> busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.

For kernel:
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/docs/linux.git/commit/?h=docs-next&id=48c3876a6a6f78578ccd0fec71ef67fd6a3fd6f5

>>>
>>>
>>
>> I could put something into suggestion:
>>
>>
>> So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the
>> maintainer, etc etc like Linux,
>>
>>
>> And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some
>> maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others
>> don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"?
>>
>> But tbh that's up for discussion.
> 
> Thanks for offering, but it's going to be a large / contentious enough
> issue that we haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately.
> 

Before you waste too much time, that person uses vibe coding without any
control and without any supervision, so that's basically AI slop.

Also, in terms of reviewing whatever review they would provide has
little value. I am sure Josh Law would be happy to give "AI-slop" review
and get tags for that.




Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2081 bytes --]

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 08:04:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/05/2026 16:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:29:50PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >> On May 25, 2026 3:27:18 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like
> >>> solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we could talk about it?
> >>>
> >>> Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
> >>> to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
> >>> the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
> >>> busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.
> 
> For kernel:
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/docs/linux.git/commit/?h=docs-next&id=48c3876a6a6f78578ccd0fec71ef67fd6a3fd6f5

That's good to know, and we should pick that up too as it is clarifying
for everyone that is acting in good faith.

> >> I could put something into suggestion:
> >>
> >>
> >> So, for patches: you could do assisted bys, and it depends on the
> >> maintainer, etc etc like Linux,
> >>
> >>
> >> And for reviews: that's actually hard to think about, because some
> >> maintainers love using AI review tools because it's useful, others
> >> don't particularly like tools like that, maybe a opt-in "reviewman"?
> >>
> >> But tbh that's up for discussion.
> > 
> > Thanks for offering, but it's going to be a large / contentious enough
> > issue that we haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately.
> > 
> 
> Before you waste too much time, that person uses vibe coding without any
> control and without any supervision, so that's basically AI slop.
> 
> Also, in terms of reviewing whatever review they would provide has
> little value. I am sure Josh Law would be happy to give "AI-slop" review
> and get tags for that.

Thanks again for the heads-up there.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]