U-Boot patch submit standard and requirement

Sat May 16 00:30:04 CEST 2026

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:02 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 04:23:49PM +0800, Sune Brian wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Brain, I understand being frustrated with the process. Ultimately,
> everyone here is a volunteer and trying their best. Which means that
> yes, we are not entirely consistent about some parts of the review
> process. I would ask you to please be kind to everyone, and expect being
> kind in return.

Hi Tom,

First  appreciate the reply.

Of course being kind and expecting the same returns is fair and even.
However, being kind and returning with teasing on the requirements
considered as appropriate action?

Then simply charge the teased unit or units with unkind behavior?
Again I had given out rooms and kindnesses from first place, however the
return is not as even as you had described.
Of course you can 100% recap it as me who shows unkindness on
the table by "verbally".
Without the double standards or even multi standards are being
shown on the table, why do I act unkindly in the first place?

Simple logic:

for(int i=0;i<standards;i++){
kind = ture;
if(reviewers_mood == you_shall_not_pass)
return teasing_func();
}

void teasing_func(void){
int bottom_line = false;
while(1){
bottom_line  = infinite_sta_bottom_line_trigger();
if(bottom_line){
kind = false;
return done_with_you();
}
}
}

Fair enough =]

Cheers,
Brian

>
> --
> Tom