Re: [PATCH 5/6] GPU-DRM-GMA500: One error message less for a GCT revision mismatch in mid_get_vbt_data()
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> Don't be a dummy... This is easy to review an it fixes a bug. In this particular case it might not be clear that an unknown GCT version causes a complete GCT failure so both messages are useful. >> >> I'm fine with you NAKing all these patches based on who they are from. >> I mostly just delete these without responding because the guy has >> history of introducing bugs and never listens to feedback. But asking >> pointless rhetorical questions is not helpful. >> >> A lot of people are CC'd and you're wasting everyone's time by asking >> questions where you know the answer. > > Fair enough, sorry for the noise. > > To be honest, I did only look at the patches, not who they were from. We > have CI for drm/i915, but I don't think it's constructive to keep > changing drivers like this where the upstream isn't actively developed > and tested. But I digress. It's up to Patrik anyway. Nothing in this series is very helpful so NAK. In general I'm not fond of trivial changes like this since it's hard to say what motivates the author. In theory it shouldn't matter but so far it's been directly related to the quality of the patches. I can help test changes for gma500 if needed but please make it worth my while. Best regards Patrik > > BR, > Jani. > > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Re: [PATCH 5/6] GPU-DRM-GMA500: One error message less for a GCT revision mismatch in mid_get_vbt_data()
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Don't be a dummy... This is easy to review an it fixes a bug. > > I'm fine with you NAKing all these patches based on who they are from. > I mostly just delete these without responding because the guy has > history of introducing bugs and never listens to feedback. But asking > pointless rhetorical questions is not helpful. > > A lot of people are CC'd and you're wasting everyone's time by asking > questions where you know the answer. Fair enough, sorry for the noise. To be honest, I did only look at the patches, not who they were from. We have CI for drm/i915, but I don't think it's constructive to keep changing drivers like this where the upstream isn't actively developed and tested. But I digress. It's up to Patrik anyway. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Re: [PATCH 5/6] GPU-DRM-GMA500: One error message less for a GCT revision mismatch in mid_get_vbt_data()
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:07:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:36:19 +0200 > > > > A single error message should be sufficient to inform about > > the detection of an unknown GCT revision at the end. > > Thus return after the logging call in this case directly. > > Did you test this? > Don't be a dummy... This is easy to review an it fixes a bug. I'm fine with you NAKing all these patches based on who they are from. I mostly just delete these without responding because the guy has history of introducing bugs and never listens to feedback. But asking pointless rhetorical questions is not helpful. A lot of people are CC'd and you're wasting everyone's time by asking questions where you know the answer. regards, dan carpenter
Re: [PATCH 5/6] GPU-DRM-GMA500: One error message less for a GCT revision mismatch in mid_get_vbt_data()
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:36:19 +0200 > > A single error message should be sufficient to inform about > the detection of an unknown GCT revision at the end. > Thus return after the logging call in this case directly. Did you test this? BR, Jani. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c > index 9004d30..e5cece0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c > @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ static void mid_get_vbt_data(struct drm_psb_private > *dev_priv) > break; > default: > dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown revision of GCT!\n"); > + return; > } > > out: -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
[PATCH 5/6] GPU-DRM-GMA500: One error message less for a GCT revision mismatch in mid_get_vbt_data()
From: Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:36:19 +0200 A single error message should be sufficient to inform about the detection of an unknown GCT revision at the end. Thus return after the logging call in this case directly. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring --- drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c index 9004d30..e5cece0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mid_bios.c @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ static void mid_get_vbt_data(struct drm_psb_private *dev_priv) break; default: dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown revision of GCT!\n"); + return; } out: -- 2.10.0
