From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/amd/display: clarify average bandwidth comment in dcn4_calcs Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:11:58 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260426191825.9727-1-adri.vero.dev@gmail.com> References: <20260426191825.9727-1-adri.vero.dev@gmail.com> <20260426191825.9727-1-adri.vero.dev@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Accuracy of the replacement comment**: Verified against the code. The fou= r accumulation sites at lines 2867-2871 all include `+ cursor_bw[k]`, confi= rming the "cursor_bw is included" claim. No `tdlut` term appears anywhere i= n this loop body, confirming the "tdlut bandwidth is intentionally excluded= " claim. The phantom pipe handling is also correct: the `if (!dml_is_phanto= m_pipe(...))` guard on lines 2866-2869 excludes phantom pipes from sys_acti= ve, while lines 2870-2871 (outside the guard) include all pipes in svp_pref= etch. **Comment style**: The old comment used C++ style (`//`), the new one uses = C block comment style (`/* ... */`). The kernel coding style prefers C-styl= e block comments, so this is a minor style improvement as well. **Minor nit**: The commit message says "cursor_bw is already correctly incl= uded in all four accumulation sites *below* the comment" =E2=80=94 this is = accurate. One could argue the new comment is slightly verbose for what it d= escribes, but given that the original FIXME expressed genuine confusion abo= ut a non-obvious design choice, the added detail is justified. **Verdict**: Looks good. The patch resolves a stale FIXME with an accurate = explanation of the existing behavior. No functional changes, no risk. Reviewed-by: appropriate. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer