From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/amd/display: Remove duplicate include
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 16:08:53 +1000
Message-ID: <review-patch1-20260211021953.2504249-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20260211021953.2504249-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn>
References: <20260211021953.2504249-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn> <20260211021953.2504249-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer

Patch Review

**Subject Line Assessment:**
- Prefix is correct: `drm/amd/display` properly identifies the subsystem
- Description is clear and accurate
- Follows kernel commit message conventions

**Commit Message:**
```
Remove duplicate inclusion of link_dp_panel_replay.h.
```

The commit message is minimal but acceptable for this type of trivial cleanup. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning:
- Where the duplicate was found (which file)
- That this has no functional impact
- Optionally: how this was discovered (manual inspection, static analysis tool, etc.)

**Code Analysis:**

The patch modifies:
```
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/link/protocols/link_dp_irq_handler.c
```

The change removes line 42:
```c
-#include "link_dp_panel_replay.h"
```

**Critical Questions to Verify:**

1. **Is this actually a duplicate?** - The patch shows removal at line 42 (after `link_dp_dpia_bw.h`), but we need to verify there's another instance of this include elsewhere in the file. The diff context doesn't show another occurrence, so I cannot independently verify this is truly a duplicate without seeing the full file.

2. **Will this break the build?** - If `link_dp_panel_replay.h` is only included once after this patch and the code in `link_dp_irq_handler.c` uses definitions from that header, the code should still compile. However, if this was the ONLY include and not actually a duplicate, this would break the build.

3. **Include ordering** - The patch shows includes in this order:
   - Various includes above (not shown)
   - `dm_helpers.h`
   - `link_dp_dpia_bw.h`
   - `link_dp_panel_replay.h` (being removed)

**Concerns and Questions:**

⚠️ **VERIFICATION NEEDED**: The diff context doesn't show the first occurrence of `link_dp_panel_replay.h`. Before accepting this patch, reviewers should verify:
   - That this header IS actually included twice in the file
   - Which occurrence is being kept (presumably an earlier one)
   - That the file still compiles after this change

**Technical Review:**

✓ **Correct approach**: Removing duplicate includes is good practice
✓ **Minimal scope**: Change is appropriately limited
⚠️ **Insufficient context**: The diff should show both occurrences if possible, or the commit message should indicate line numbers of both

**Testing Considerations:**

This change should:
- Compile cleanly with no warnings
- Not change any generated object code (can be verified with diffoscope or objdump comparison)
- Pass any existing CI/automated tests

**Recommendation:**

**CONDITIONAL ACK** - This patch is acceptable IF the submitter can confirm:
1. The header is genuinely included twice in the source file
2. The patch has been compile-tested successfully
3. Ideally, show the full include block or mention both line numbers in the commit message

**Suggested Improved Commit Message:**
```
drm/amd/display: Remove duplicate include of link_dp_panel_replay.h

The header link_dp_panel_replay.h is included twice in
link_dp_irq_handler.c (at lines X and 42). Remove the duplicate
inclusion at line 42.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Chen Ni <nichen@iscas.ac.cn>
```

**Questions for Author:**
1. How was this duplicate discovered? (manual review, compiler warning, static analysis tool?)
2. Has this been compile-tested on the target architecture?
3. Can you confirm the other include location in the file?

**Final Verdict:** The patch appears correct for a cleanup change, but lacks sufficient context for independent verification. Maintainers should verify the duplicate exists before applying.

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer