[PATCH] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongarch: Fix mismathed compatible

[PATCH] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongarch: Fix mismathed compatible

[Liu Peibao]

The "compatible" doesn't match what the kernel is using. Fix it as
kernel using.

Fixes: 855d4ca4bdb3 ("irqchip: loongarch-cpu: add DT support")
Signed-off-by: Liu Peibao <liupeibao@loongson.cn>
---
 .../loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller.yaml                   | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller.yaml
index 2a1cf885c99d..81e4c0feb11e 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller.yaml
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ maintainers:
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    const: loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller
+    const: loongson,cpu-interrupt-controller
 
   '#interrupt-cells':
     const: 1
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ required:
 examples:
   - |
     interrupt-controller {
-      compatible = "loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller";
+      compatible = "loongson,cpu-interrupt-controller";
       #interrupt-cells = <1>;
       interrupt-controller;
     };
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongarch: Fix mismathed compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/12/2022 04:02, Liu Peibao wrote:
> The "compatible" doesn't match what the kernel is using. Fix it as
> kernel using.
> 
> Fixes: 855d4ca4bdb3 ("irqchip: loongarch-cpu: add DT support")

Really? You just added these patches...

1.  In the same time Loongson people keep pinging for accepting these:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/e3bf1f8a-e37e-46e3-f9b3-20a9031d49e2@loongson.cn/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/f5d0f796-0147-8789-5bed-edf38b28229e@loongson.cn/

All the time - several pings, every week.

2. In the last weeks, two of your engineers sent the same driver
(Loongson I2C) in the same time, with different names! For the same
hardware.

3. Several other patches from Loongson, when posted on mailing lists,
have multiple compile warnings. This suggests they were not really
compiled properly (with different test configs, with W=1, smatch,
sparse, coccinelle). There were so many compiler warnings, that I assume
your patches should wait on mailing list for two weeks before starting
any review. Otherwise it's a bit waste of reviewer's effort.

Patches are welcomed but all this points on poor quality of submissions
and sending anything, hoping it will get merged upstream, regardless of
quality.

I appreciate fixing the patch fast, it's a good sign, but maybe Loongson
could a bit improve internal processes of review before sending and
pinging on mailing list?

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: loongarch: Fix mismathed compatible

[Jianmin Lv]

On 2022/12/8 下午4:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/12/2022 04:02, Liu Peibao wrote:
>> The "compatible" doesn't match what the kernel is using. Fix it as
>> kernel using.
>>
>> Fixes: 855d4ca4bdb3 ("irqchip: loongarch-cpu: add DT support")
> 
> Really? You just added these patches...
> 
> 1.  In the same time Loongson people keep pinging for accepting these:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/e3bf1f8a-e37e-46e3-f9b3-20a9031d49e2@loongson.cn/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f5d0f796-0147-8789-5bed-edf38b28229e@loongson.cn/
> 
> All the time - several pings, every week.
> 
> 2. In the last weeks, two of your engineers sent the same driver
> (Loongson I2C) in the same time, with different names! For the same
> hardware.
> 
> 3. Several other patches from Loongson, when posted on mailing lists,
> have multiple compile warnings. This suggests they were not really
> compiled properly (with different test configs, with W=1, smatch,
> sparse, coccinelle). There were so many compiler warnings, that I assume
> your patches should wait on mailing list for two weeks before starting
> any review. Otherwise it's a bit waste of reviewer's effort.
> 
> Patches are welcomed but all this points on poor quality of submissions
> and sending anything, hoping it will get merged upstream, regardless of
> quality.
> 
> I appreciate fixing the patch fast, it's a good sign, but maybe Loongson
> could a bit improve internal processes of review before sending and
> pinging on mailing list?
> 
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Hi, Krzysztof

As for me privately, I must say that I'm very appreciate patient helps 
and guides to us (some of us are new comers include me without more 
experience) from each maintainer and reviewer, thanks very much!
 From some patch series(include my patches), it literally seems that 
some low quality problem (e.g. since some reasons such as not familiar 
with rules of community patch, building warning by test robot checking 
and no internal review process) just as noise that bothered reviewers 
and consumed more time (back and forth), which is definitely due to our 
poor work in my opinion (though I'm not sure how others think about it). 
Have Loongson folks (especially new comers like me) put more efforts 
into patch work and learn about experience from reviewing process, the 
patch quality would be improved better.

Again, thanks for pointing out some problems you mentioned above(e.g. 
same patch with different name from different Loongson people, 
frequently pinging and patch quality), I think I can feed back them to 
company to pay more attention and take steps to improve community work.

Thanks!
Jianmin Lv