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

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>]

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
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@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx