Hi, On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:08 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 17/10/2023 11:18, Tylor Yang wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This patch series adds the driver for Himax HID-over-SPI touchscreen ICs. > > This driver takes a position in [1], it intends to take advantage of SPI > > transfer speed and HID interface. > > > > Dear Google/Chromium folks, > > As a multi-billion company I am sure you can spare some small amount of > time/effort/money for internal review before using community for this > purpose. I mean reviewing trivial issues, like coding style, or just > running checkpatch. You know, the obvious things. > > There is no need to use expensive time of community reviewers to review > very simple mistakes, the ones which we fixed in Linux kernel years ago > (also with automated tools). You can and you should do it, before > submitting drivers for community review. We can certainly talk more about this, but a quick reply is: 1. If a patch really looks super bad to you then the right thing for you to do is to respond to the patch with some canned response saying "you didn't even do these basic things--please read the documentation and work with someone at Google to get a basic review". This seems like a perfectly legit response and I don't think you should do more than that. 2. IMO as a general rule "internal review" should be considered harmful. When you're a new submitter then absolutely you should get some internal review from someone who has done this before, but making "internal review" a requirement for all patches leads to frustration all around. It leads to people redesigning their code in response to "internal review" and then getting frustrated when external maintainers tell them to do something totally different. ...then upstream reviewers respond to the frustration with "Why were you designing your code behind closed doors? If you had done the review in the public and on the mailing lists then someone could have stopped you before you changed everything". 3. The ChromeOS team is organized much more like the upstream community than a big hierarchical corporation. Just as it's not easy for you to control the behavior of other maintainers, it is not trivial for one person on the team to control what others on the team will do. We could make an attempt to institute rules like "all patches must go through internal review before being posted", but as per #2 I don't think this is a good idea. The ChromeOS team has even less control over what our partners may or may not do. In general it is always a struggle to get partners to even start working upstream and IMO it's a win when I see a partner post a patch. We should certainly help partners be successful here, but the right way to do that is by offering them support. About the best we can do is to provide good documentation for people learning how to send patches. Right now the ChromeOS kernel docs [1] suggest using "patman" to send patches and I have seen many partners do this. Patman will, at the very least, run checkpatch for you. Our instructions also say that you should make sure you run "checkpatch" yourself if you don't run patman. If people aren't following these docs that we already have then there's not much we can do. So I guess the tl;dr from my side: a) People should absolutely be posting on mailing lists and not (as a rule) doing "internal review". b) If a patch looks really broken to you, don't get upset and don't waste your time. Just respond and say that you'll look at it once it looks better and suggest that they get a review (preferably on the mailing lists!) from someone they're working with at Google. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/kernel_development.md#send-out-the-patch-using-patman -Doug
