Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/i915/guc : Removing i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading module

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/i915/guc : Removing i915_modparams.enable_guc_loading module
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:03:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <150966741566.13980.17680494033065153797@mail.alporthouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABVU7+vW_E27hA_8H+iWUcs4_ufdUrqsZw_pauQLOPn_87K6xA@mail.gmail.com>

Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-11-02 23:52:45)
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Joonas Lahtinen
> <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> 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@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com>
> >
> > 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

But CCs come after a s-o-b, because they are added after the commit. (I
write some code, then think who might be interested; usually by looking
at who previously worked on the same code). Then you also add new CCs
later on based on review feedback; a comment on v1 gets a CC on v2.
Bugzilla/reported-by/suggested-by are before since they presumably
prompted the commit to be written in the first place (plus also they
deserve extra credit for their effort in alerting us to the issue).
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx