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

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Vivi, Rodrigo (2022-09-09 19:33:45)
> 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.

Discussed with Dave and I did a force-push to add the missing
Acked-by's.

Daniele, I think the tradition is that you have volunteered
yourself to improve dim to nag about missing Acked-by's for
patches outside of i915 when pushing to drm-intel-gt-next.

Regards, Joonas

> 
> > > 
> > > 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 at 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
> > > 
> > 
>