Re: [PATCH V7 3/4] drm/bridge: Add driver for GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ Bridge

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@collabora.co.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	martyn.welch@collabora.co.uk, peter.senna@gmail.com,
	ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@collabora.com>,
	javier@dowhile0.org, Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	martin.donnelly@ge.com, devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	tiwai@suse.com, Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 3/4] drm/bridge: Add driver for GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ Bridge
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:00:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170203080040.qn53xnpojxzk4qoi@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACvgo50bOZ=jzeJc_J4_7fpiEh9-ATKo1KOhAia2679AGA=mng@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:37:21PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>  - Daniel, gents - is drm-misc aimed at devs with limited (no?)
> review/commit history in the area and/or the kernel in general ?
> In this case, Peter have quite noticeable experience [in kernel
> development] with little-to no in DRM.
> Should one draw a line in the sand somewhere ?

We're fairly lenient with accepting new drivers already, and for drivers
in drm-misc we require some checks and peer review to make sure new folks
learn faster. But it's an expirement, I fully expect some fallout and then
some learnign and fine tuning from that, and maybe we even need to crank
requirements back up to a much higher level of experience.

But for drivers I'm honestly not too concerned: As long as there's some
process in place to foster learning&collaboration (which I think will be
better with this) I really don't see much harm in merging non-perfect
driver code.

>  - You patch has been on a long [bit rocky road] for a while, with
> devs giving you [what seems like] a partial reviews.
> Have you considered reviewing others' patches in exchange for a [more
> complete one] of this one ? According to git log people have poked you
> a handful of times, but seemingly you were busy.

Just a clarification: When I review drivers I don't do a fairly cursor
look, hunting for areas where some refactoring and align with drm best
practices would be good. And I think that's perfectly fine and enough to
get a driver landed, but we're definitely not 100% consistent on this
within drm-misc. Probably will take some time to figure this out.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch