Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231127051414.3783108-1-victor.liu@nxp.com> <CACRpkdZAtxh5muhbPKvmUQGtQogs3UhGxNZqnSGWoWQNUL7=9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <k65hxlckssjd46nsrlly6vjrr5nnkrakouzw5pmxgbf6ui3mdl@5ny7j7blkwyj>
 <CACRpkdbKwycpjuhMfnriqMUcbmwCTb3vJzgzCF7+ARax54q7WQ@mail.gmail.com> <d33ovl3ox2u74jbik2bcraeqiqplqoc57p4quapdyydqlyzrf5@vlhszortxfio>
In-Reply-To: <d33ovl3ox2u74jbik2bcraeqiqplqoc57p4quapdyydqlyzrf5@vlhszortxfio>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:38:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb1DmH2NJ2nBRtGaB+9Tmbn1tzXafDSpZVxjCFnexz=3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before
 managing device link
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc:     daniel@ffwll.ch, Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        andrzej.hajda@intel.com, neil.armstrong@linaro.org,
        rfoss@kernel.org, Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com,
        jonas@kwiboo.se, jernej.skrabec@gmail.com,
        maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, tzimmermann@suse.de,
        airlied@gmail.com, angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com,
        ulf.hansson@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:32=E2=80=AFPM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> =
wrote:
[Me]
> > It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal pro=
cess,
> > and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we c=
an
> > revert the patch, or both.
>
> Yeah, I definitely understand why you did it, but I don't think it's
> something we would encourage in drm-misc.

Hm OK I guess, it can be debated but no point in debating it either.

> We've discussed it with Sima yesterday, and I think we would even need
> the extra check in dim to make sure that a committer shouldn't do that
> without dim complaining.
(...)
> Sima played a bit with it, and it should be doable to get something
> fairly reliable if you use get_maintainers.pl to retrieve the git tree
> (through scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-email --no-l --scm) and figuring
> out if only drm.git, drm-intel.git or drm-misc.git is involved.
>
> If it isn't, then we should check that there's the ack of one of the
> maintainers.

So check for any code that is hitting namespaces outside drivers/gpu/*
Documentation/gpu/* or include/[uapi/]drm/* that it is ACKed by the respect=
ive
maintainer for that area of the kernel?

> Could you write a patch to do so?

Patch dim? Well my bash skills are a bit so-so. But I guess I could
learn it. But did you say there is already a prototype?

Yours,
Linus Walleij