Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] drm/i915/gt: Use pci_rebar_size_supported()

["Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>]

On 16.09.25 10:12, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 03:42:23PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> PCI core provides pci_rebar_size_supported() that helps in checking if
>>>>> a BAR Size is supported for the BAR or not. Use it in
>>>>> i915_resize_lmem_bar() to simplify code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Just for some random noise on commit log's bureaucracy: why do we
>>> need both Ack and R-b? I think R-b covers Ack making it
>>> redundant. Right?
>>
>> reviewed-by is a more formal attestation of the entries in the
>> submitting-patches doc, saying that he carefully reviewed the work.
>>
>> acked by is to state that from the maintainer perspective of that file
>> the file can be merged through any tree.
>>
>> in the drm trees nowdays our tooling is enforcing acked-by tag if
>> the patch is touching domains outside that drm branch itself.
>>
>> if a committer tries to push a patch without ack from the maintainer
>> of that domain it will be blocked.
>>
>> So I believe it is a good idea to keep a separation of the meaning.
>> Carrying a technical review of the patch in question doesn't necessarily
>> mean that you, as maintainer, is okay of getting that patch merged
>> through other trees.
> 
> Yes, all of the above. I just wanted to be explicit to avoid the
> follow-up questions "thanks for the review, but is it okay to merge via
> pci" or "thanks for the ack, but does this need review also", and move
> on from this whole thread. (Which is a nice cleanup, btw, thanks.)

Mhm, that's a really good point.

My understanding of an Acked-by by a maintainer is also "go a head and merge it through your tree", but I think we never formally documented that.

At least I can't find any reference to that in the "When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:" section of Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.

Regards,
Christian.

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
>