[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] Misc sm501 improvements
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] Misc sm501 improvements |
Date: |
Wed, 4 Jul 2018 01:24:03 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 |
Hi David, I'll reply to you using Peter mail :)
On 07/03/2018 06:13 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 01:28, David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I can have a look, but really I think these should go via the
>>> ppc tree -- the device is used in a ppc machine and an sh4 one,
>>> and the ppc tree is much more active than sh4.
>>
>> Hm, well, if you like. Although the gradual creep of my
>> maintainership scope into things I know less and less about makes me
>> rather nervous. I tried to convince Balaton Zoltan to become sm501
>> maintainer, but he didn't bite.
>
> It's not like I know anything more about the sm501 than you do :-)
>
> The arm parts of the tree have a lot of board and device code
> I'm not familiar with either. Generally the approach I use is:
> * eyeball the code to see if it's doing anything that looks
> "obviously wrong", failing to use correct QEMU APIs, etc
Gerd Hoffmann did a review for the graphic code,
then commented "all look sane":
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-06/msg06493.html
I don't have a serious understanding of QEMU graphic internals, but
looked at those patches and didn't find anything "obviously wrong".
> * anything that touches 'core' code or code common to multiple
> machines gets closer scrutiny
The only SH4 tests I run are using Aurelien Debian:
https://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/sh4/
> * I might check the data sheet if I'm feeling enthusastic or
> if the code looks like it's doing weird things, but often
> not, especially if the code has had review from somebody else
I did a review of the I2C/DDC patch with the specs at hand.
> * if I have a test image to hand I'll do a smoke test, but often
> I don't have a test image
Neither do I.
> Basically I think the important thing is to make sure the
> codebase stays maintainable and generally the quality bar
> in terms of using the right APIs and design approaches
> tends to ratchet up rather than down. If our implementation
> of an obscure device isn't actually right, that doesn't
> really affect very many users, so I worry less about that
> side of things.
Zoltan used few deprecated API but said updating "could be done in
separate clean up", which I agree :)
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-06/msg06911.html
FWIW and using Peter's criteria I think this series is good to go.
Regards,
Phil.