Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link

From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: daniel@ffwll.ch, Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org,  sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	 andrzej.hajda@intel.com, neil.armstrong@linaro.org,
	rfoss@kernel.org,  Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com,
	jonas@kwiboo.se, jernej.skrabec@gmail.com,
	 maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, tzimmermann@suse.de,
	airlied@gmail.com,  angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com,
	ulf.hansson@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:05:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cmebtbqvckxlscimbtwgkyf4bkqqmr6uprqaadakz2kcvwxx4t@kj3gvgopezyy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdb1DmH2NJ2nBRtGaB+9Tmbn1tzXafDSpZVxjCFnexz=3g@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2004 bytes --]

Hi Linus,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:38:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:32 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> [Me]
> > > It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal process,
> > > and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we can
> > > revert the patch, or both.
> >
> > Yeah, I definitely understand why you did it, but I don't think it's
> > something we would encourage in drm-misc.
> 
> Hm OK I guess, it can be debated but no point in debating it either.
> 
> > We've discussed it with Sima yesterday, and I think we would even need
> > the extra check in dim to make sure that a committer shouldn't do that
> > without dim complaining.
> (...)
> > Sima played a bit with it, and it should be doable to get something
> > fairly reliable if you use get_maintainers.pl to retrieve the git tree
> > (through scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-email --no-l --scm) and figuring
> > out if only drm.git, drm-intel.git or drm-misc.git is involved.
> >
> > If it isn't, then we should check that there's the ack of one of the
> > maintainers.
> 
> So check for any code that is hitting namespaces outside drivers/gpu/*
> Documentation/gpu/* or include/[uapi/]drm/* that it is ACKed by the respective
> maintainer for that area of the kernel?

We can have something more reliable if we just check the git tree listed
in MAINTAINERS (and returned by get_maintainers --scm). That way we
don't have to whitelist anything, and it will always by in sync with
MAINTAINERS.

And if it's not one of drm trees, then it requires an ack from someone
else get_maintainers will also tell you about.

> > Could you write a patch to do so?
> 
> Patch dim? Well my bash skills are a bit so-so. But I guess I could
> learn it. But did you say there is already a prototype?

My shell skills are also fairly limited, so we just discussed the
solution but didn't do a prototype yet :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]