On 3 February 2017 at 08:00, Daniel Vetter [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:37:21PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:

quoted

 - Daniel, gents - is drm-misc aimed at devs with limited (no?)
review/commit history in the area and/or the kernel in general ?
In this case, Peter have quite noticeable experience [in kernel
development] with little-to no in DRM.
Should one draw a line in the sand somewhere ?

We're fairly lenient with accepting new drivers already, and for drivers
in drm-misc we require some checks and peer review to make sure new folks
learn faster. But it's an expirement, I fully expect some fallout and then
some learnign and fine tuning from that, and maybe we even need to crank
requirements back up to a much higher level of experience.

But for drivers I'm honestly not too concerned: As long as there's some
process in place to foster learning&collaboration (which I think will be
better with this) I really don't see much harm in merging non-perfect
driver code.

Thank you Daniel, this is very well said. Being lenient to begin with
and adjusting where/if needed is the more welcoming approach, indeed.
Doubt there'll be (m)any cases of (ab|mis)use but even if so, nobody
can see the future.

quoted

 - You patch has been on a long [bit rocky road] for a while, with
devs giving you [what seems like] a partial reviews.
Have you considered reviewing others' patches in exchange for a [more
complete one] of this one ? According to git log people have poked you
a handful of times, but seemingly you were busy.

Just a clarification: When I review drivers I don't do a fairly cursor
look, hunting for areas where some refactoring and align with drm best
practices would be good. And I think that's perfectly fine and enough to
get a driver landed, but we're definitely not 100% consistent on this
within drm-misc. Probably will take some time to figure this out.

Seems like I've missed "Peter, your patch..." above, silly me.

Thanks for answering my [what may seem silly] questions ;-)
Emil