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

[Andy Shevchenko]

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