On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 06:40:51PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As far as I know, I have addressed the review comments from previous > > round and answered the questions/concerns that you had either in the > > M-L or in IRC. May be answering them on IRC created some confusion > > and you thought that it was unanswered. I will reply to all your > > review comments from previous round with what I have chnaged to > > address it or why it wasnt changed. That way we can make sure that > > none of them are getting ignored. Hope this method works for you. > > In general, all review comments *must* be addressed, either by > responding to them (ask for details or rationale or question them) or > making the changes in code. Sending new patch versions without > mentioning why review comments have not been addressed is not okay, and > rubs many people the wrong way, and I'm not immune to that. > > IRC may be okay for discussion, but if the other person does not seem to > be around or does not acknowledge your comments, you can't assume the > other person will (or even can) read all of the backlog. For bigger > design discussions, it is usually best to recap the IRC discussions in a > reply to the mailing list (but that's general advice, and not really the > case here). > > IIUC you're going to make additional changes to the series. Please make > them, and read the patches carefully before you send them. (Please note > that this is not intended as patronising advise; I read almost all of my > contributions as patches before I send them. And it's not unusual for me > to change stuff at this stage to make it easier to read and review.) > > Let's drive this to conclusion now. > > > BR, > Jani. > I agree and I will take care of these things next time. For now yes lets drive this to conclusion. I went over the comments all over again and noticed that there were these things that I interpreted differently or had a different opinion on and were not addressed: * Remove test_result variable * Populate intel-dp->compliance.test_data values at the end of the function for all test handlers (link training and video pattern) after all reads and validations are done. I have changed above two things in Patches 1 and 4 and resubmitted newer versions of those. Hope those revisions would drive us to conclusion. Thanks again for taking time for driving this to completion. Regards Manasi > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
