[PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option

[Thierry Bultel]

Hi Geert,

Could you provide some input here on how you'd like these config options
to be handled please ?

Thanks !
Thierry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:40
> To: Thierry Bultel <thierry.bultel.yh at bp.renesas.com>;
> thierry.bultel at linatsea.fr
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc at vger.kernel.org; geert at linux-m68k.org; Paul Barker
> <paul.barker.ct at bp.renesas.com>; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC
> option
> 
> On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> > Hi Krysztof,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> >> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
> >> To: Thierry Bultel <thierry.bultel.yh at bp.renesas.com>;
> >> thierry.bultel at linatsea.fr
> >> Cc: linux-renesas-soc at vger.kernel.org; geert at linux-m68k.org; Paul
> >> Barker <paul.barker.ct at bp.renesas.com>;
> >> linux-arm->kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H
> >> SoC option
> >>
> >> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial)
> >>> specific code for it.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <thierry.bultel.yh at bp.renesas.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct at bp.renesas.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no
> answer.
> >>
> >> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
> >
> > Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph at the end
> > of the cover letter about this point.
> 
> We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
> disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
> silently discard.
> 
> You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
> patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly the
> same arguments - "not my problem".
> 
> So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and is not
> even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof