[Cc: +dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, +Daniel Vetter, +Alexander
Deucher, +Greg KH]
Dear Alex,
I am a little confused and upset about how Display Core patches are
handled in the Linux kernel.
Am 25.03.22 um 23:53 schrieb Alex Hung:
From: Martin Leung <Martin.Leung@xxxxxxx>
git puts a line “This reverts commit …” into the commit message, when
something is reverted. Why isn’t this here? Right now, commit
7d56a154e22f, reverted here, is proposed for the stable series. I guess,
because these indicators and meta data are missing.
why and how:
causes failure on install on certain machines
Why are such kind of commit messages accepted? What does “failure on
install” even mean? Why can’t the machine configuration be documented so
it can be reproduced, when necessary.
No less confusing, the date you posted it on amd-gfx is from March 25th,
2022, but the author date of the commit in agd5f/amd-staging-drm-next is
`Fri Mar 18 11:12:36 2022 -0400`. Why is the patch missing the Date
field then?
Reviewed-by: George Shen <George.Shen@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Martin Leung <Martin.Leung@xxxxxxx>
Shouldn’t the Signed-off-by line by the author go first?
You committed this on `Mon Mar 28 08:26:48 2022 -0600`, while you posted
the patch on amd-gfx on Friday. How should *proper* review happen over
the weekend?
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
index f2ad8f58e69c..c436db416708 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
@@ -1496,10 +1496,6 @@ bool dc_validate_boot_timing(const struct dc *dc,
if (!link->link_enc->funcs->is_dig_enabled(link->link_enc))
return false;
- /* Check for FEC status*/
- if (link->link_enc->funcs->fec_is_active(link->link_enc))
- return false;
-
enc_inst = link->link_enc->funcs->get_dig_frontend(link->link_enc);
if (enc_inst == ENGINE_ID_UNKNOWN)
The patch reverted here, also lacked proper review, had a to-be desired
commit message, did not follow the Linux kernel coding style (missing
space before the comment terminator), so should not have been committed
in the first place.
Seeing how many people are in the Cc list, I would have hoped, that
somebody noticed and commented. The current state also makes it really
hard for non-AMD employees to get the necessary information to do proper
reviews as the needed documentation and information is non-public. So
good/excellent commit messages are a must. I think to remember, you
replied to me once, that Display Core patches are shared also with the
Microsoft Windows driver, restricting the workflow options. But I think
the issues I mentioned are unrelated. I know graphics hardware is very
complex, but if quality of the commits and review would be improved,
hopefully it saves time for everyone in the end, as less bugs are
introduced.
Could AMD team please address these issues as soon as possible?
Kind regards,
Paul
