On 02/10/18 01:30, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-10-01 22:53:46)
Fair enough.
Acked-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenzi...@intel.com>
for the series.
Please, read the following chapters (they're applicable for the patch
tag meanings in IGT, too):
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes
If we spend the time to actually review the patches, that should be
documented with a proper Reviewed-by and not a vague Acked-by.
KMS is really an area I do not know much about. While I can say the
patches are looking good on the IGT side, I cannot guarantee they use
the KMS interface appropriately therefore the 'Acked-by'. After reading
the documentation you linked I think it fits rather well since the only
feedback I gave was on a small oversight.
Thanks,
Antonio
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
