[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66a88c64-cc8f-45ed-81c6-f7e2947f1f18@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:30:37 +0200
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
CC: <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] GPU-DRM-Radeon: Fine-tuning for three function
implementations
Am 10.05.2017 um 02:23 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
> On 03/05/17 09:46 PM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 02.05.2017 um 22:04 schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
>>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
>>> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 22:00:02 +0200
>>>
>>> Three update suggestions were taken into account
>>> from static source code analysis.
>>>
>>> Markus Elfring (3):
>>> Use seq_putc() in radeon_sa_bo_dump_debug_info()
>>> Use seq_puts() in radeon_debugfs_pm_info()
>>> Use seq_puts() in r100_debugfs_cp_csq_fifo()
>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
> Based on
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-May/140837.html
> and followups, I'm afraid we'll have to make sure Markus' patches have
> been tested adequately before applying them.
I can't judge the background of that decision, but at least those tree
patches for radeon looked trivial to me.
I don't see much what could go wrong when merging them. On the other
hand you are right that trying to find hardware to test that stuff could
be challenging.
Christian.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists