Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/7] dt-bindings: net: qcom: document the ethqos device for SCMI-based systems

On 09/03/2026 09:39, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 11:25 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 04:46:39PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Describe the firmware-managed variant of the QCom DesignWare MAC. As the
>>> properties here differ a lot from the HLOS-managed variant, lets put it
>>> in a separate file. Since we need to update the maximum number of power
>>> domains, let's update existing bindings referencing the top-level
>>> snps,dwmac.yaml and limit their maxItems for power-domains to 1.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Romain Gantois <[email protected]> # For RZ/N1
>>
>> Can we drop half-baked reviews? Reviewing only that piece is not even
>> possible, because it makes no sense outside of main change context. IOW,
>> it's pointless review of nothing, if you do not actually review the main
>> change impacting RZ/N1.
>>
> 
> This is the first time I'm hearing we can't review individual parts of
> changesets? I see your point about this particular patch and the fact

Of course you can review. And that will be Ack, not reviewer's statement
of oversight.

> it only makes sense as a whole but is this the official policy for
> parts of larger DTS patches?


"Acked-by.... user may not have carried out a technical review of the
patch,yet they may be satisfied ..."

"Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and
found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"

Above important: "THE PATCH"

It is not "the patch or its parts"

Further:

"I state that:
(a) I have carried out a technical review of *this* patch to evaluate
its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into  the mainline kernel."

And further:

"A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that *the patch* is an"

And really, really reviewing only Renesas part in this patch is NOT a
review. It caries zero meaning whether this patch is correct. It caries
only acknowledgment that Renesas part seems fine, but if main binding is
wrong by mistake (because it was unreviewed), then Renesas part is not
fine either.

IOW, I believe, you cannot give a correct, *meaningful* review of this
binding patch without reviewing the referenced schema.

That's not a official position, that's my interpretation of submitting
patches document and my feeling of logic behind performing any review.

Best regards,
Krzysztof