Re: [PATCH 16/32] drm/amd/display: Add Support for HDMI Compliance Automation

On 2026-07-23 17:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/07/2026 05:57, Chen, Chen-Yu wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Sorry for the very late reply.
>>
>> I recently discovered that I missed this review comment when promoting the series upstream. That was my mistake, and I apologize for overlooking your feedback.
>>
>> I have since reviewed the comment with the original author. After revisiting the implementation, we do not plan to make further changes to this patch.
> 
> NAK, drop the patches and implement the review.
> 

And what will that accomplish?

Nicolas comments were good. But they're not core to the functionality
of the work and can be easily addressed after. We had a brief chat and
the comment that we don't "plan to make further changes to this patch"
was a miscommunication. I'd like to apologize on behalf of the team for
that.

> You received review, which you completely ignored because you are used
> to develop all this stuff behind closed doors and LKML is just dumping
> ground for you. Dumping of already approved work which you do not even
> bother to discuss.
> 
> Dumping ground of such reviews and multiple Signed off by:
> 
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/docs/linux.git/commit/?h=docs-next&id=a8657c82a6dbda34c918e13d93c4005a103eb00b
> 
> Really, what did you review there? This:
> 
> -#define DC_VER "3.2.388"
> +#define DC_VER "3.2.389"
> 
> This is even better:
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/docs/linux.git/commit/?h=docs-next&id=312c2729b0130fc1629f19eceebbce60aae5c7eb
> 
> Because you even tested something like this:
> 
> -#define DC_VER "3.2.386"
> +#define DC_VER "3.2.387"
> 

And what's the issue with carrying a version in our driver and update
it regularly? This is code that various people port to various downstream
franken-kernels. Reading the version number lets us and others know quickly
what they're dealing with.

> Of course these fake tests and fake reviews barely matter. What matters
> is how you actually *ignore* public discussion (so your email client is
> not even configured to discuss on LKML and does not wrap replies) and
> then claim "we do not plan to make further changes"...
> 

What fake tests? I can assure you the tests are anything but fake and am
not happy to see you drag Dan's weekly work into the mud.

Harry

> Otherwise this is just bcachefs style of upstream collaboration.
> 
> So please start making a plan and start discussing your work BEFORE you
> merge such patches. That's how upstream development works.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof