U-Boot patch submit standard and requirement

[Sune Brian]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 3:46 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 08:46:25AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:14 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 07:46:46PM +0800, Sune Brian wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 6:37 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Brian,
> > > > >
> > > > > You have made a very generic statement about levels of accountability
> > > > > on patch sets and consistency in reviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you be more specific?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ultimately there are subsystem maintainers and each maintainer has
> > > > > variation on how they deal with their subsystem. You reference one doc
> > > > > three times in your statement.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Now I understand what you mean.
> > > > Simply one sentence is a bit hard to read what your thoughts are.
> > > >
> > > > That document I am quoting does not refer to the entire docs but only one
> > > > section of the docs with that link.
> > > >
> > > > Before quoting, my declarations as follows:
> > > > 1) I am not referring to specific people or party
> > > > 2) I experienced reviewer which again not being specific to one that
> > > > mentioned this docs is a supreme rules to follow otherwise patch
> > > > that is committed is not able to push to mainstream
> > > > 3) I simply do a quick check on u-boot mailing pool and do see a lot
> > > > of uncompiled reviewed patches that are not following that supreme
> > > > docs.
> > > >
> > > > As such I will being to quote:
> > > >
> > > > The mailing that are reported as not passing the standard of [1]
> > > > Full mailing:
> > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260423042824.3480-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3684415
> > >
> > > patchwork isn't loading for me, but it's on lore here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260423042824.3480-1-briansune@gmail.com/
> > >
> >
> > Hi Dooley,
> >
> > Well I am sure you did not have the full picture.
> >
> > The request had nothing to do with under the --- line if this is
> > really the case:
>
> > Let me bring you back to the history of wonders:
> >
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260421004719.73491-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3680232
> >
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260422065910.5398-1-briansune@gmail.com/
> >
> > None of those reviewers had mentioned this issue once "---" rather they all
> > just alarmingly repeated the wordings.
>
> The first mail in the thread mentions it:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAFLszThg=EamyRohxNA7V+nk+OMVK356nUjAVSbu4+kokOJpdA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> >
> > > The comment about the changelog format seems to be very harsh, I doubt
> > > it really makes any difference. What you did and what the maintainer
> > > requested are effectively the same thing at the end of the day.
> > >
> >
> > Of course after reading the docs I got it immediately.
> > However did those who request contributors quote this from first place?
> >
> > > The real problem with your patch is that you put the changelog into the
> > > commit message itself, rather than under the --- line.
> > > None of the examples you quote below do that.
> > >
> >
> > Well after 4 patches of ridiculous request and logic change.
> > I guess you will do the same. At least I am not doing it at the
> > first moment on replying to the mails who or whom you had mentioned.
>
> I think this is a reply to the comment below?
> The aggressive/antagonistic responses begin in your first reply to
> Simon:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAN7C2SAdg1MX3ZfEt5-68iiw3pdjyqva48F_uJjNwsHAhdmY3Q@mail.gmail.com/
> "So forgive me I really don't give a damn on whatever the header
> requirements." "There are many better things to do rather than complaining
> about the patch headers."

Hi Dooley,

You are a bit off topic here sorry if you don't think this is the case but
please do finish reading.

For what the accused I will give out specific mailing dialogs to explain
[HERE].

The major discussion or query is all about the standards or rules.
There is nothing to do with the reply.

Meantime, I cannot see this as "aggressive/antagonistic responses".
When the request changes it is ridiculous as you also agree:
The header text /  wordings from the updated patch itself
had zero impact on the patch itself.

You are just simply telling me that if you get hit by someone 4 times,
the man who stands out and responds is "aggressive/antagonistic".

Again we are NOT discussing any mailing dialogs but the U-Boot
patch header standards and rules.

Meantime you had failed to respond or comment the entire mailing
dialogs do mention any "---" header requirements nor the
necessaries of following docs supreme rule / standard from first place.

[HERE]
Allow me to quote the request of header and modifications mail history:

No docs cited nor clearly mentioned the need of specific wordings:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260420074601.24988-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3680096

No docs cited nor clearly mentioned the need of specific wordings:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260421004719.73491-1-briansune@gmail.com/#3680232

So now you are telling me after at least 2 versions of modifications
reviewers suddenly think oh this is not good enough (by my rules)
I think it should be other styles etc.

Now "LOOK INTO MY EYES" and tell me what is the actual U-Boot
header standard? Reviewer mood or docs that are given out?

Regards,
Brian

>
> > > Also, your responses to Simon in the thread you link are very
> > > aggressive and antagonistic. Please try to be kinder to those that take
> > > time to review your submissions.
> > >