From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C22EA3932E2; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 21:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772574296; cv=none; b=unycbcfKbDKr1UoxvizIVBDt0z/UJ30km+7QzJKH+w8wxVXbfOCJfISTxniGuN8qwrpCCCJtyM4kkSMYyyoyhngS1Z9y/fPDEQ9114sZA+/thRlDCvzX1wDF2BVAAMJ/RPb3/RPMD8LRinDuo9cuZBJtVhNDKh6nKRmHZRpmbt0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772574296; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PjR3jckYCYcM7Ut3oA4LoKrYLChPd920RY9pHaS7PWs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o0zpzkiHtyXOMAE8J/V3PNPr3irPeQMiYbnhO4u6BMaW96VW9jJIdtcmr4JKT9jkAc+9zTyqTEe2IkgwJUV3A/Lt1oWea85wesUw3U0wy7/YmebpBIW+T4l6KA2w8QbQtaVduPFz6pZOMndSljjYNMmzUD3Ngj3cP+tdsLjq4zE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TXPqODqs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TXPqODqs" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F15EC116C6; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 21:44:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772574296; bh=PjR3jckYCYcM7Ut3oA4LoKrYLChPd920RY9pHaS7PWs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TXPqODqsKckUq8SIOOOLw9J1MBW9rP4bZ4mb+/umoZYl3mklZFuFq3f32FlJJum+W VeNyzhz3kxXR4JisoeWLYMZSjZM5UbFpKmwhg5/xbUDsb5VCuEEV8FC3BikBUpTdGM Owtnc/x77W3hmiMYiowah5ULteKF80wJGZZ5yNCTJ2NSLeLCpqdLViTUJaXFMTSDpY RT2qhjO8m26cIliOVn0avzF9ziRrkbjYpgoySvxMtAv0QDj9yk4urHhpyQZ5CIp7lZ D2HYRGPdjgLOuVGvXWZ+/+MvzTNHltgKnG4r88wKTvkqGcyHwXjRWEw6wJNxlJAi3V bFUs7M4/E56Jg== Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 16:44:54 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: "Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" Cc: Antheas Kapenekakis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/2] platform/x86/amd: Add AMD DPTCi driver Message-ID: References: <20260303181707.2920261-1-lkml@antheas.dev> <20260303181707.2920261-3-lkml@antheas.dev> <3057e55a-00f9-4da2-bc10-a6bc19716fdd@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 02:54:59PM -0600, Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org) wrote: >+ Sasha > >On 3/3/2026 2:40 PM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote: >>On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 21:10, Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org) >> wrote: >>> >>>I'll preface this by saying - I don't have a problem with using an AI to >>>help write a driver, but please disclose that it was done and that in >>>this case even you haven't closely audited the results. >>> >>>I personally would never submit something generated by an LLM that I >>>didn't audit and add a S-o-b tag to it (asserting I am willing to stand >>>by the code). >>> >>>I'm glad that I found out it was AI written before I started to review >>>the code, I would have had a lot more candid comments for you. >>> >>>There is a lot of weird stuff in this driver that I'm not going to >>>comment on and nitpick, but I'll leave a few broad strokes things. >> >>Of course, to that end, feel free to skip a full review until I get to >>properly rewriting it. >> >>What is the current stance on Co-bys for that? I'm trying to follow >>the discussion but I missed the news. I can lint it properly next >>time. >> >> From my perspective, pouring a month into a driver like this without >>having a firm commitment that it will go somewhere is a bit hard to >>stomach. > >Sure. > >I don't need a dedicated tag telling me what tool you wrote it with. >I don't care if it was Opus, Gemini or Qwen3.5. They all can make >mistakes that need to be audited. > >The most important part to me (or any reviewer) is a signal that I >shouldn't invest more effort reviewing this than you did writing it >and reviewing it. > >My feeling on this kind of RFC this is the most appropriate tag: > >Not-signed-off-by: Foo Bar We have docs for this now :) Both in the README file as well as Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst . In particular, you should be upfront about using AI to generate code, using the Assisted-by: tag, and definitely giving it a very careful review making sure you completely understand what the code does. As the README says: The human submitter is responsible for: * Reviewing all AI-generated code * Ensuring compliance with licensing requirements * Adding their own Signed-off-by tag to certify the DCO * Taking full responsibility for the contribution -- Thanks, Sasha