From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792993756; b=NNEES0tABSXARrzUljO1pxK4SjDPZrLWphXYqjI2ycXdkYk4pyL9PveybYVSgOO3uS+m E9u/Md2x8RxHqBNqYKQEiQfT6GldELrhSGQUkyeFhoFraznugETVuZIPW0o/D6TkKbcI9 JBa3zmDHsl+9cuN3CR7CppkJ+cgxPOPgcbQLv7XAHJEvI6koMgENISY+6AWQkI1Nb+9xG zBURY7gqN8pzRK9S2dIUEDq+GvRiiLtgjZUY6sYewFhp+jjglpb56jwpSbYuhcFVgxWve Q+8tP8uwPhPWHdPu7X/yZpux3KbLVNtndHSnLqDy0PFk7uLVLkOJvf5GxOdmXjCyp3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792993756; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; bh=MhFAy4lbkABSIaB8V4GLadKEiGetCotIcrPzjkrSm+Y=; b=yoP3INi0hqOSeaplcoBB2ZmTPCBX77k5JqGK7kKrCTz6kii7JSRJj73VmM8c1AgyZa+5 d4aMDqLCjYOMswB18BLQi9IlAR7dM1U2oZQGG3vP1fI7t7OV1xRYoq9eP9WV5bDujKn3/ s7ltYJGpHUouKIEUUt3SKBjC0lTjxrhUapil6LM/neZCW3Dxu1c4B5oCj+aWQXSwRLGGs 2ID9SNL+mMop3mKI+dDdXXJNfAzt3hF4g1K74qyps6EvmIDgiw3eR0VzH/qeWmZN23Pfj uzssGPdTh/JpHfzWqIShvv5gBoFcO7DRw68lZxsqn005p6TuoQ/ye39hexMxTpuKv0w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none header.from=gibson.dropbear.id.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gandalf.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass header.d=gibson.dropbear.id.au header.i=@gibson.dropbear.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=202610 header.b=liiQmoN6; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=150.107.74.76 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8736606A331; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 05:49:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org C8736606A331 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gibson.dropbear.id.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gandalf.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=gibson.dropbear.id.au header.i=@gibson.dropbear.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=202610 header.b=liiQmoN6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gibson.dropbear.id.au; s=202610; t=1792993753; bh=MhFAy4lbkABSIaB8V4GLadKEiGetCotIcrPzjkrSm+Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=liiQmoN6GbV9QMlRdoVD4oROmZI0wNYNmhFqyZhAXFcVrOYux2W7NIFKsh5eRhAHY QP0uu7BRvDYHd4lwGQ6PU1D4/M+ybTxo7ccIDUPqfbz+I77LlHdr65KIWcilerhYSO N0PDPtjvg9qShC/8lNMZddMOcBXnnhijsUOHDff06VQgtnAaoWnFwFimmfwIPbxKia VBB6q1tUSJshWdZm5RM6QCiMav9vMog0RQKmkJvmG01SJFAWbglLRl0x1I2QuTXemF g/oUkqhaO4LXdsB+BeBtvEqaAOB0Gn6DtdvgL+Cu2giqJWd23o78iuSHkElJCvfx9H G78fJtFexumfQ== Received: by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 4jCjP56mvHz4wK3; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:49:13 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:48:26 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Douglas Anderson Cc: Devicetree-compiler@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Konrad Dybcio , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Brian Norris , Tudor Ambarus , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Draszik , Julius Werner , Saravana Kannan , Peter Griffin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fdtfactor: Introduce fdtfactor to auto-factor overlays Message-ID: References: <20261015182221.2931742-1-dianders@chromium.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u8HORElLyf/mPT4P" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --u8HORElLyf/mPT4P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 03:49:09PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 11:21:33AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: [snip] > > I'll freely admit that the patches in this series were pretty heavily v= ibe > > coded. I'll not pretend that I have a deep understanding of the intraci= cies > > of how overlays are implemented. That being said: > > * I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing the code from a high-level > > perspective: confirming that functions are well documented, well stru= ctured, > > and make sense. > > * I believe that what the tool is doing and how the tool is used make s= ense. > > * I have had quite a number of internal "the AI reviews the AI" rounds = to > > the point of diminishing returns. > > At this point, I'm not embarassed to put my name behind this. While I w= on't > > promise that there is zero cases of the AI doing something really stupi= d, > > I'd be willing to bet that the end result is better (and cleaner / bett= er > > structured) than what I would have coded up if I had spend a few weeks = doing > > this on my own. >=20 > Thanks for that clear and helpful context. My views on AI are > complicated, leaning negative, but I do think it can be a useful tool > and have no plans to reject patches purely because they're AI > assisted. A statement like that goes a long way to convincing me that > I'm not about to waste my effort reviewing slop. c.f. my rather > unfriendly response[2] to a recent very sloppish bug report which > vastly overestimated the impact of the bugs in question. >=20 > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/devicetree-compiler/as8RYmIp0pDCplpu@gractus.= seuss/ >=20 > Understand that all dtc maintainership is unpaid volunteer time for > me, so I'm less responsive about reviews than would be ideal. I am > gradually chiping away at the backlog, though. Fwiw, here's a follow up on this topic now that I've actually read the series (or at least, the heart of it in 2/4). This does exhibit some of the pitfalls of AI generated code. Most obviously, that patch itself is pretty monstrous - at least by default, coding agents aren't very good at considering splitting series for the benefit of reviewability. It does exhibit signs of AI-typical verbosity. It's not too bad in terms of locally redundant code, although there are a few examples. It's worse in terms of "conceptual verbosity" - most obviously it uses two quite different ways of representing the tree being processed. It's not really clear why or if that's necessary or useful and it makes it substantially more confusing to read. I don't know what prompts you used for AI-reviewing-AI, and I don't have a lot of experience with that, but I wonder if results could be improved by using some review prompts not focussed on correctness or (superficial) style. e.g. "look for DRY violations", "look for redundantly represented data", "look for workarounds for bugs in pre-existing code, and fix those sepearately first". --=20 David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --u8HORElLyf/mPT4P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEO+dNsU4E3yXUXRK2zQJF27ox2GcFAmre6aEACgkQzQJF27ox 2GfAyg/8DUjS/fAf3DSfd+bvQj1v90iR92bCR0RPxye6ml0xSd887AEgMy2hItDT GZ4z1dcSzYsyLCq9rLiPxHUuKR19Ge5eMT3Tu/eojW7lpk2s6xnrXliEiSzHbmeV 5y3ndvlLLj9vS3Q/iQvIpEoqSCYEZx6raqw+5Iks3mJZf1AUxEq+8Pph9eKeoRDo +Uwx+gMUGrV7+fDaA58iFMvELKqhBTGBW0I8g0bJtEAA2Yh2wAr+Ds/qo17IRFxj jpPp2OefSIDKKJw1Q+oZD7Y3IwAHaTyfWMcz+Bt+d7JmGEh0xlBth2HQXzDuvVNc kpB9SIm5kIcMX3+ESN0cirJ9sHPoT+xNQpI+oVP9se2M2wsE7rN1S5ImjLPtbX1F p5EgHpgaXgn5y0wUZ/b81qnP66b0+KMz4uEgYMn1aZkgaaLT8Mn8hfojra5kjlNd 7cQ95KUtEKEzn0QwdCNTydhxyarmDQUT5+PpzLDNMoeAhivsR3WC5tYMfL0mbrhH b8D+Hh79LuNuBSQIEai95RfbJGMP+UO0bhFBipP/t+ZMU7K4tONsBwHlvevK8wBU zHY0tiXcF1f7cgAqph3iBfNhqVWIMgKP3lbSx7WllDH8fxwaM1l0OHMQFWbYqAxs m93AoOqJX95rlTORKALJ4aeX/pGw4EAM8x7fql6IN9daUXLUnIc= =RZwm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u8HORElLyf/mPT4P--