Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221117110804.1431024-1-hsinyi@chromium.org> <CAD=FV=VEC=GzkDfaOqauBB5Y79teS1ENA5wFUHZmnTRkg6Z4tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VEC=GzkDfaOqauBB5Y79teS1ENA5wFUHZmnTRkg6Z4tg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 01:20:19 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJMQK-gQj83N1MBu1s+_YDJ4qbqN4McSqCnOwWAq4iaNXo5Sfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] drm_bridge: register content protect property
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Allen Chen <allen.chen@ite.com.tw>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:57 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 3:08 AM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Some bridges are able to update HDCP status from userspace request if
> > they support HDCP.
> >
> > HDCP property is the same as other connector properties that needs to be
> > created after the connecter is initialized and before the connector is
> > registered.
> >
> > If there exists a bridge that supports HDCP, add the property to the
> > bridge connector.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>
> Not sure it's worth spinning for, but FWIW I wouldn't put
> "Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>". The emails from that
> bot are always a bit confusing in this regards, but I think they mean
> "if the patch has already landed and you're sending a separate patch
> with a fix then please add the "Reported-by" tag". ...but adding it to
> the original patch just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Got it, thanks. I think I'll wait for a while to see if there's other
comments. Otherwise should I send another version to remove the tag?