On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 10:47:01AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2025, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Just needs a typo fixed, Matthew Brost also commented that the second I915 > > here should be PREEMPT-RT instead. > > The commit message does not say what is being done here, and why. > > "no need for backporting"? > > "this is only useful for i915"? > > *what* "doesn't compile with PREEMPT-RT enabled"? > > Nobody's going to understand what any of this means if a bisect/blame > lands here a couple of years from now, even if it's an apparently simple > change.
I've been looking at some of the AMD patches and found the template to be much useful. Subject: [WHAT] Commit message: [WHY] [HOW] Not a hard mandate but worth thinking in this direction? Raag > > Den 2025-12-10 kl. 09:56, skrev Jani Nikula: > >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2025, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> No need for backporting, this is only useful for i915, > >>> and it doesn't compile with I915 enabled. > >> > >> Please elaborate. There's just riddles here. > >> > >> BR, > >> Jani. > >> > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c > >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c > >>> index 5b41abe1c64d5..172c0062237eb 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lpe_audio.c > >>> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ void intel_lpe_audio_irq_handler(struct intel_display > >>> *display) > >>> if (!HAS_LPE_AUDIO(display)) > >>> return; > >>> > >>> - ret = generic_handle_irq(display->audio.lpe.irq); > >>> + ret = generic_handle_irq_safe(display->audio.lpe.irq); > >>> if (ret) > >>> drm_err_ratelimited(display->drm, > >>> "error handling LPE audio irq: %d\n", ret); > >> > > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel
