From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B0C4CA0FF3 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 19:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDC410E1E5; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 19:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD7D10E7B7; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:27:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1693571264; x=1725107264; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=OTEL3GSK+6A4sQHuCHvEp5CHkNzWKNu+FDPztYX+hGI=; b=FshBngAnY5WJ3BlzDpMAEoxHz8qcADzo7OsqpaZGyUigPFByWLzZozl/ oUkO0orWx/9u3MIPlt2CZ3YY4rGD1zth/7aXP9q9kdMcmj+9mXBVL/Cbl i/Fgp+gBN+oOmHGqZ5utoSxInSCJ2AewVF/5ltnnHvkR0o/gu8KBjA6sg Mu3fxhFWn3Qz9jfv67eZEx4QHRbdhLfmR05L8CBYk/YyqFETPsjb3Euze rSdj9m1fCUwXkaAFomPhRUc/HERezpuzUaloDupwbMPpbax/P0eW9YdDJ Dgxmx9utfucH4exCPeeLDfsQcq4vdX5+sjaWsUbiEizbE2tkYUEjy5Lhq g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10819"; a="462575733" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,219,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="462575733" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2023 05:27:43 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10819"; a="863524687" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,219,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="863524687" Received: from epronina-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.34.21]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2023 05:27:33 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Alex Hung , Alex Deucher Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] drm/amd/display: stop using drm_edid_override_connector_update() In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <788721f6-afff-e0b2-db7c-32ab2dd075a9@amd.com> <87il965gob.fsf@intel.com> <871qfm2kg1.fsf@intel.com> <87o7ip252r.fsf@intel.com> <87jztd2332.fsf@intel.com> <1e6aa1ff-9aa9-6b2f-84f4-e0304205085c@amd.com> <87h6oh0yz9.fsf@intel.com> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 15:27:27 +0300 Message-ID: <87msy6hyds.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 19:03:54 +0000 X-BeenThere: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for AMD gfx List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Leo Li , Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo Siqueira , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, "Wang, Yu \(Charlie\)" , Daniel Wheeler , Hersen Wu , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Wenchieh Chien , Alex Deucher , Dave Airlie Errors-To: amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "amd-gfx" On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Alex Hung wrote: > On 2023-08-30 01:29, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Alex Hung wrote: >>> There is a patch under internal reviews. It removes calls edid_override >>> and drm_edid_override_connector_update as intended in this patchset but >>> does not remove the functionality. >> >> While I am happy to hear there's progress, I'm somewhat baffled the >> review is internal. The commits that I suggested to revert were also >> only reviewed internally, as far as I can see... And that's kind of the >> problem. >> >> Upstream code should be reviewed in public. > > Hi Jani, > > All patches are sent for public reviews, the progress is summarized as > the followings: > > == internal == > > 1. a patch or patches are tested by CI. > 2. internal technical and IP reviews are performed to ensure no concerns > before patches are merged to internal branch. > > == public == > > 3. a regression test and IP reviews are performed by engineers before > sending to public mailing lists. > 4. the patchset is sent for public reviews ex. > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/122498/ > 5. patches are merged to public repo. The point about public review is that there's no transparency to the steps before 4. The patches are posted for public review with Reviewed-by and Acked-by already added, based on internal review, and there is de facto no public review taking place on the code drops. There is zero visibility to the discussions taking place. We don't know if it's just rubber stamping, we don't know what concerns were raised, if any. I'm mainly disappointed about the double standards here, given that we post most patches directly upstream (especially ones that have zero reason to be embargoed like the ones being discussed here), and the ones that have gone through internal review will be stripped of all prior internal Reviewed-by's and Acked-by's before posting. Because that's the upstream expectation. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center