On 22/01/2024 05:57, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:08 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. >> >> Thanks in advance. > > First of all, I can understand your sentiment towards some of the > patches being in a very rough shape. As a community we have large > volumes of patches to review and it would be really helpful if new > contributors followed some basic simple steps, as described in our > "Submitting patches" page... I don't really understand why responding to something which is three months old. Anyway, I talked with Doug on Plumbers about it so things are more or less clarified, however since two Google folks responded, let me continue. > > That said, it's not a fair assumption that there are no steps taken to > offload the upstream reviewers community by the corporate > contributors. We usually do have basic internal pre-reviews for > patches coming from partners and even a pre-review bot (CoP) that can Good to know. > automate some of the checks such as checkpatch or bisectability. But > as others said in this thread, we don't control our partners and they > are free to send the patches just directly to the mailing lists if > they want to do so. In a similar way, not everyone in ChromeOS is > super experienced with upstream submissions, so sometimes they may not > be aware of the best practices, etc. > > I haven't seen the patch in question, but I'd assume it's more like an > exception rather than a usual pattern, so I'd appreciate it if we Unfortunately that's the pattern. I was complaining few times about very poor quality of some patches from some partners before writing that email. Just to clarify: all the complains are about missing basic stuff, like running basic tools. They don't even require internal review by humans. > could avoid aggressive responses like that and try to solve the > problems in a more productive way. Just a simple response with a link > to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > wouldn't really cost you much, or actually even less than the entire > litany in this email. Simple response to docs don't work. Docs are quite long and contributors questioned here just don't read them in details. Best regards, Krzysztof
