linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Add support to control backlight using bl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 11:41:13 +0100
From:   Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     antoniospg <antoniospg100@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sam@...nborg.org, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: Add support to control backlight using
 bl_power for nva3.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/22 23:32, antoniospg wrote:
> > Summary:
> >
> > * Add support to turn on/off backlight when changing values in bl_power
> >   file. This is achieved by using function backlight_get_brightness()
> >   in nva3_set_intensity to get current brightness.
> >
>
> This is [PATCH v2], right? If so, next time please pass -v <version
> number> to git-format-patch(1).
>
> Also, just say the prose without using bullet list. "Summary:" line
> is also redundant. And again, please describe why this change be made.
>

it's right there in the title....

> > Test plan:
> >
> > * Turn off:
> > echo 1 > /sys/class/backlight/nv_backlight/bl_power
> >
> > * Turn on:
> > echo 0 > /sys/class/backlight/nv_backlight/bl_power
> >
>
> Shouldn't "test plan" above be documented in Documentation/ instead?
>

Given that's already existing infrastructure and is actually
documented already (the existence of `bl_power` I mean), why would
that be needed? I don't think it's needed to point that out in the
commit log, but if the contributor chooses to document how the patch
was tested, then why not?

> Last but not least, is "antoniospg" your real, legal name?
>

Please leave those discussions to subsystem maintainers.

Saying that, if the contributors prefers to go by this name, this is
good enough for me, but having a more explicit or detailed name (like
fore- and surname) is generally prefered.

> Thanks.
>
> --
> An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
>