AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:25:19PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> On May 25, 2026 3:21:59 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> >> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >wrote:
> >> >Hi Tom,
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am
> >doing
> >> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
> >> >brief
> >> >> > > > description of how it works.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new
> >'patman
> >> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or
> >perhaps
> >> >a
> >> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch,
> >does
> >> >a
> >> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry,
> >it
> >> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
> >> >update
> >> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert
> >in
> >> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt
> >to
> >> >make
> >> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> >> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
> >> >considerably.
> >> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
> >> >even
> >> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
> >> >imagine
> >> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you
> >can
> >> >ask me here.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
> >> >tools
> >> >> > > > for code review.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not
> >yet
> >> >have
> >> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
> >> >making
> >> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> >> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent
> >didn't
> >> >see
> >> >> > > any problems".
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first
> >pass
> >> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
> >> >posting
> >> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
> >> >that
> >> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
> >> >agent
> >> >> > > one is using.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
> >> >topic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale
> >is
> >> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
> >> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor
> >here
> >> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
> >> >
> >> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
> >> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
> >> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
> >> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
> >> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
> >> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
> >> >
> >> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
> >> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Simon
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
> >> 
> >> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
> >> 
> >> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
> >> 
> >> Or would it be like
> >> 
> >> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
> >> 
> >> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)
> >
> >That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
> >bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
> >something already.
> >
> >
> 
> Personally Tom, projects like Linux take it slightly different
> 
> maintainers usually say:
> "AI asked a question" then link the sashiko (AI review tool) link, with
> all of AIs comments
> 
> The general gist, is if there is any comments, you either fix it, or you
> say why it isn't a bug
> 
> I have mixed opinions on sashiko tbh.
> 
> Also, maintainers tend to use their **OWN** review tools.
> 
> But most projects do generally ban AI anything.
> 
> Idk what we could do for u-boot when it comes to a sashiko like solution.
> 
> Maybe we could talk about it?

Proposing a policy for the project about AI (and indeed not just linking
to other projects which have what I find to be helpful references) is on
the TODO list for the project leadership committee. We've just been
busily handling other issues for a while now, unfortunately.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20260525/093616bf/attachment.sig>