Re: [PATCH v4] drm/i915/hwmon: expose fan speed

Andy Shevchenko
2024-08-21T11:39:13Z

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:52:10AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 05:49:23PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:00:27PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 12:57:54PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:48:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 11:45:25AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:

...

> > > > > I do not understand why we pollute Git history with changelogs, but it's
> > > > > probably the ugly atavism in DRM workflow.
> > > >
> > > > I never liked it! Besides it should even be against the
> > > > submitting patches recommendation.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what interest might have someone in a couple
> > > > of years, reading this commit, knowing an unintellegible list of
> > > > differences between v2 and v3.
> > > >
> > > > I consider it a random pollution of the commit log.
> >
> > I agree it is ugly. But I don't agree it is just a 'random polution'.
> >
> > I consider a valid and very useful information of the patch history.
> > Very useful for a later cross check to know what exactly version
> > of that patch got merged.
> > Useful for distros on backports as well.
>
> Isn't this why we have 'Link' as part of commit which points to
> actual ML submission?
>
> > > Isn't it already documented?
> > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> >
> > I think it is:
> >
> > "Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
> > for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
> > reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond
> > politely and address the problems they have pointed out. When sending a next
> > version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
> > explaining difference against previous submission
> > "
> >
> > Then:
> >
> > '''
> > Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
> > '''
> >
> > defines 'changelog' as the block above the signatures.
> >
> > And
> >
> > 'The canonical patch format'
> >
> > also tells that anything after '---' marker line is for
> > "Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog."
> >
> > But well, the important part is to have the version information
> > available for reviewers.
>
> Can still be available below '---' marker.

+1 to what Raag said.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko