Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/i915/skl+: Prepare for removing data rate from skl watermark state, v2.

From: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
To: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/i915/skl+: Prepare for removing data rate from skl watermark state, v2.
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:55:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161027175527.GH5924@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1477590499.19886.82.camel@intel.com>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:48:19PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Em Qui, 2016-10-27 às 10:31 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu:
> > Op 27-10-16 om 09:12 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 03:41:29PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > - Remove plane->pipe checks, they're implied by the macros.
> > > > - Split unrelated changes to a separate commit.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.c
> > > > om>
> > > Drive-by review: The above commit message is way too thin. It
> > > prepares for
> > > something, but I can't make any connection at all to that
> > > something. 1-2
> > > sentences about why are needed here I think.
> > 
> > Hm, seems to have been lost somewhere. It was on my previous
> > submission:
> > 
> > Caching is not required, drm_atomic_crtc_state_for_each_plane_state
> > can be used to inspect all plane_states that are assigned to the
> > current crtc_state, so we can just recalculate every time.
> 
> My review of v1 also complained about the commit message, so I got
> surprised by seeing it just go away in v2. 
> 
> If my understanding of the code is correct, I think the text would make
> more sense if it was rewritten to:
> 
> Caching is not required, drm_atomic_crtc_state_for_each_plane_state can
> be used to inspect the states of all planes assigned to the CRTC even
> if they are not part of crtc_state, so we can just recalculate every
                          ^^^^^^^^^^
This should refer to the top-level state object (i.e.,
drm_atomic_state), not crtc_state.  But otherwise I agree that this text
sounds good.

With the missing commit message fixed,

Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>

Matt

> time.
> 
> But feel free to not use the text above if you think it's not
> completely accurate.
> 
> With the commit message problem solved somehow:
> Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> 
> > 
> > ~Maarten
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
IoTG Platform Enabling & Development
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx