On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 09:25 -0700, Sujaritha wrote: > > On 10/18/2017 03:58 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 15:50 -0700, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: > > > We currently have two module parameters that control GuC: > > > "enable_guc_loading" and "enable_guc_submission". Whenever > > > we need i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission=1, we also need > > > enable_guc_loading=1. We also need enable_guc_loading=1 when > > > we want to verify the HuC, which is every time we have a HuC > > > (but all platforms with HuC have a GuC and viceversa). > > > > I already gave comments about clarifying the commit message, that does > > not seem to have been addressed. > > > > Regards, Joonas > > > Sorry about that, I was hoping to fix the commit message after this > revision. > I will fix the commit message in the next revised series. In general, it's good idea to take review comments for all of the patches and apply all the changes at once to avoid double digit version numbers :) Every revision you send to the list, should be one you feel is complete and ready to be merged. A new revision should only be needed when something new is brought up in review (usually due to the changes made from the last revision). The CI system automatically picks up all patch series from the mailing list, so sending intermediate versions will only cause unnecessary load. If you feel the need for iterating some feature more, it's adviseable to join the IRC channel and ping the reviewer there. That way you don't have to wait for a day or day and a half to get comments for the small changes. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
