Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] Introduce ExynosAutov920 SoC and SADK board

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 17/11/2023 08:19, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> 
> On 23. 11. 16. 20:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/11/2023 04:32, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>> On 23. 11. 16. 06:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2023 22:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 15/11/2023 14:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:55:56 +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> ExynosAutov920[1] is ARMv8-based automotive-oriented SoC.
>>>>>>> This SoC is the next generation of exynosautov9 and AE(Automotive Enhanced)
>>>>>>> IPs are used for safety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patchset is the minimal set for ExynosAutov920 SoC and SADK board.
>>>>>>> Currently, ramdisk console is available and Clock, UFS, and USI will be
>>>>>>> added after this patchset.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>> And dropped. You did not test it. Please read Samsung SoC maintainer
>>>>> profile:
>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainers.html#arm-samsung-s3c-s5p-and-exynos-arm-architectures
>>>>>
>>>>> I also made announcements on the lists and on social.kernel.org. I don't
>>>>> know where to announce it more...
>>>>>
>>>> To clarify, I dropped only DTS and kept bindings. Let me know if
>>>> bindings are problematic here...
>>>>
>>>> I also repeated the announcement:
>>>> https://social.kernel.org/notice/AbqJkj9gOZJ3sG8eCu
>>>> Please share internally within Samsung, so there will be no surprises.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I already checked and there were no warnings or errors as shown below.
>>>
>>> Did I miss something??
>> It's not what is written in maintainer profile. Where do you see the
>> result of dtc W=1?
>>
> 
> Sorry, Krzysztof I miss W=1.
> 
> I haven`t been active in mainline for a long time, so I`m missing out on 
> a lot of things.

If you (plural you, Samsung) ever gave me an email address where I can
send notifications I would gladly forward them to you.

Over the time I sent few of them, like the one about deprecation of
platforms or changing some rules, feedback for common solution for
minidump (to remind: Samsung decided to skip it so we go with Qualcomm
idea and you will not be able to come with your own later) etc. I was
even contacting some addresses in Samsung LSI, but there was never a
response, except the one about minidump.

There was like never a chance to really get to Samsung, so sorry, now it
is Samsung's fault it does not follow announcements.

Best regards,
Krzysztof