Message-ID: <e1672fff-8a46-1fe7-9873-031eaa7c8cf1@marcan.st>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 19:13:23 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>, Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Mark Kettenis <kettenis@openbsd.org>
Cc:     asahi@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230202-asahi-t8112-dt-v1-0-cb5442d1c229@jannau.net>
 <20230202-asahi-t8112-dt-v1-1-cb5442d1c229@jannau.net>
 <3287867a-456c-ddc3-adbf-90001950c926@linaro.org>
 <0a33fa04-039f-9a7e-f2a3-2a1a6abc98d4@marcan.st>
 <5ff55f1c-8f02-abec-2320-c2e0b7db8904@linaro.org>
 <391ae107-8c10-b14e-c1ad-0fac74951432@marcan.st>
 <af7fb166-64e3-6fcd-c270-6dd53bbe96c0@linaro.org>
From:   Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] dt-bindings: power: apple,pmgr-pwrstate: Add t8112
 compatible
In-Reply-To: <af7fb166-64e3-6fcd-c270-6dd53bbe96c0@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 14/02/2023 18.39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 09:43, Hector Martin wrote:
>> On 14/02/2023 16.50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2023 03:24, Hector Martin wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/2023 20.09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/2023 16:41, Janne Grunau wrote:
>>>>>> From: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add the apple,t8112-pmgr-pwrstate compatible for the Apple M2 SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This goes after t8103. The sort order logic here is having SoC numeric
>>>>>> code families in release order, and SoCs within each family in release
>>>>>> order:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - t8xxx (Apple HxxP/G series, "phone"/"tablet" chips)
>>>>>>   - t8103 (Apple H13G/M1)
>>>>>>   - t8112 (Apple H14G/M2)
>>>>>> - t6xxx (Apple HxxJ series, "desktop" chips)
>>>>>>   - t6000 (Apple H13J(S)/M1 Pro)
>>>>>>   - t6001 (Apple H13J(C)/M1 Max)
>>>>>>   - t6002 (Apple H13J(D)/M1 Ultra)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that t600[0-2] share the t6000 compatible where the hardware is
>>>>>> 100% compatible, which is usually the case in this highly related set
>>>>>> of SoCs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Missing SoB.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather get an r-b, since this is going back into my tree ;)
>>>
>>> Please follow Linux process which requires SoB chain.
>>
>> A SoB is not an r-b. I do not upstream patches that are unreviewed. I
>> wrote the patch. Someone needs to review it.
>>
>> The extra SoB is redundant because this is going back into my tree, I
>> wrote it, and I will be the committer when I apply it. It's a one-liner
>> patch. I know what I wrote. Sure we could record Janne's SoB as a
>> technicality, but it feels silly. What matters more is that the patch
>> gets reviewed, not that on a patch series technicality it ended up being
>> Janne who sent it to the list. I could just pull the patch from my own
>> branch and then it didn't go through Janne so it doesn't need his SoB.
>> But it does need someone's review (because I absolutely refuse to merge
>> my own patches without review, although not every maintainer has that
>> policy unfortunately, which means there's lots of unreviewed code in the
>> kernel).
>>
>> Please. Let's cut down on the silliness. Please. We're trying to get
>> stuff done here. I'm tired of having to explain every little thing over
>> and over and over again. I really am.
> 
> Listen, I have no clue whether Janne changed the patch or not. 

I do, which is why I asked for an r-b and not an SoB.

> She might
> have rebased it or not. 

The patch is identical to what is in my asahi tree already.

> The chain expects that anyone touching the patch
> must leave SoB.

And clearly it wasn't touched here.

> I am not providing my reviewes for patches breaking the
> process we have clearly described.

Good thing we don't need your review for simple compatible additions then!

>  I also do not see any problem in
> following the process we have - adding SoB whenever you play with a
> patch and send it. Entire discussion is silly indeed, instead of just
> following the process.

Or you could just stop nitpicking and doubling down on things that don't
even concern you, since it is *my* tree and *my* job to worry about the
signoffs being kosher, not yours, as *I* am upstream in the submission
path and you are not.

- Hector