Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 00/15] GSC support for XeHP SDV and DG2

["Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 08:17 -0700, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/9/2022 3:24 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Dave, do you have a preference how to deal with the mishap here,
> > shall I do a
> > force-push to drm-intel-gt-next to correctly record the Acked-by or
> > revert and
> > re-push? Or just leave it as is?

Dave and Daniel, this question is still pertinent.

> > 
> > Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman (2022-09-01 18:09:09)
> > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 03:26:21PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > Add GSC support for XeHP SDV and DG2 platforms.
> > > > 
> > > > The series includes changes for the mei driver:
> > > > - add ability to use polling instead of interrupts
> > > > - add ability to use extended timeouts
> > > > - setup extended operational memory for GSC
> > > > 
> > > > The series includes changes for the i915 driver:
> > > > - allocate extended operational memory for GSC
> > > > - GSC on XeHP SDV offsets and definitions
> > > > 
> > > > This patch set should be merged via gfx tree as
> > > > the auxiliary device belongs there.
> > > > Greg, your ACK is required for the drives/misc/mei code base,
> > > > please review the patches.
> > > With the exception that you all don't know what year it is:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Daniele, why were the patches applied without this A-b?
> 
> Apologies, I usually rely on dim to pick up all the correct r-bs and 
> acks from the ML and to warn me if something is missing, and I didn't
> realize that it hadn't automagically picked up the ack.

I understand the feeling. Recently I merged a patch from Vinay relying
on patchwork to get the reviewed-by and I forgot to double check.

dim picks up the "Link:", but I don't believe it picks any ack or rv-b
from the mailing list. Patchwork does if you use pwclient or something
like that.

Anyway, lesson to both of us to always double-check, regardless the
tool used.

> 
> > 
> > I'm just preparing the drm-intel-gt-next pull request and now it
> > appears
> > like we're pushing a lot of commits outside of drm without any
> > Acks.
> > 
> > Please reach out to the maintainers *before* pushing code for other
> > subsystems. Unless you get an explicit ack to do so, do not push
> > such
> > code.
> 
> I'm assuming you mean the i915 maintainers here, given that there is
> an 
> ack from Greg in this email? Rodrigo was in the loop of us needing to
> merge this via drm, so I thought I was good on that side. I'll make
> sure 
> to have an explicit ack on the ML next time (which is coming
> relatively 
> soon, because there are some more mei patches in the DG2 HuC series).

That's my fault indeed. I was following the movement, but I failed
to step up right after I saw Greg's ack.
Although I also noticed some re-send and reviews in progress even
after the ack, I should had been more active there.

Sorry,
Rodrigo.

> 
> > 
> > Quoting from the committer guidelines[1] the first rule is:
> > "Only push patches changing drivers/gpu/drm/i915."
> > 
> > In those cases, please ping a maintainer and don't rush things.
> 
> Will do. And apologies again for the mistake.
> 
> Daniele
> 
> > Regards, Joonas
> > 
> > [1] https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer-
> > drm-intel.html#high-level-guidelines
> > 
>