[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Add automation support for DP Compliance (Rev 6)
manasi.d.navare at intel.com
Tue Jan 24 17:20:48 UTC 2017
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 06:40:51PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare at intel.com> wrote:
> > As far as I know, I have addressed the review comments from previous
> > round and answered the questions/concerns that you had either in the
> > M-L or in IRC. May be answering them on IRC created some confusion
> > and you thought that it was unanswered. I will reply to all your
> > review comments from previous round with what I have chnaged to
> > address it or why it wasnt changed. That way we can make sure that
> > none of them are getting ignored. Hope this method works for you.
> In general, all review comments *must* be addressed, either by
> responding to them (ask for details or rationale or question them) or
> making the changes in code. Sending new patch versions without
> mentioning why review comments have not been addressed is not okay, and
> rubs many people the wrong way, and I'm not immune to that.
> IRC may be okay for discussion, but if the other person does not seem to
> be around or does not acknowledge your comments, you can't assume the
> other person will (or even can) read all of the backlog. For bigger
> design discussions, it is usually best to recap the IRC discussions in a
> reply to the mailing list (but that's general advice, and not really the
> case here).
> IIUC you're going to make additional changes to the series. Please make
> them, and read the patches carefully before you send them. (Please note
> that this is not intended as patronising advise; I read almost all of my
> contributions as patches before I send them. And it's not unusual for me
> to change stuff at this stage to make it easier to read and review.)
> Let's drive this to conclusion now.
I agree and I will take care of these things next time.
For now yes lets drive this to conclusion. I went over the comments all over again and
noticed that there were these things that I interpreted differently or had a different opinion
on and were not addressed:
* Remove test_result variable
* Populate intel-dp->compliance.test_data values at the end of the function for
all test handlers (link training and video pattern) after all reads and validations
I have changed above two things in Patches 1 and 4 and resubmitted newer versions of those.
Hope those revisions would drive us to conclusion.
Thanks again for taking time for driving this to completion.
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Intel-gfx