On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 15:56 -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). > > Long lines in commit message, please give a look at: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.13/process/submitting-patches.html > > Section "14) The canonical patch format". > > Then, about the patch. I think the commit message should be more clear > about the fact that if we have HuC firmware to be loaded, we need to > have GuC to actually load it. So if an user wants to avoid the GuC from > getting loaded, they must not have a HuC firmware to be loaded, in > addition to not using GuC submission. > >> >> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) >> >> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) >> >> v4: Rebase >> >> v5: Separating message unification into a separate patch >> >> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx> > > Try to keep the tags in chronological order, so start with Suggested- > by: (if any), Signed-off-by:, Cc: and so on. Could we agree on have Suggested-by: Cc: Signed-off-by: as the initial chronological order and then follow the chronological after that as well? Few reasons for that: 1. For my brain this is the regular chronological message flow: someone suggested, you message some one and last thing you do before sending the message is to sign-off. 2. git commit --amend -s adds it to the end. 3. Signed-off-by: at the end of the message was always our standard and every patch that I see around in the kernel seems to prefer this style 4. When I look to the first email and I see cc below the first thing that I think is: "This developer forgot to sign-off his own patch!". Thanks, Rodrigo. > > 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 -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
