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: Add DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_COLD_RESET recovery method Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 14:32:33 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260406142325.157035-8-mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com> References: <20260406142325.157035-6-mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com> <20260406142325.157035-8-mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review ```c +#define DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_COLD_RESET BIT(4) /* full device cold reset */ ``` and: ```c + case DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_COLD_RESET: + return "cold-reset"; ``` This is clean and straightforward. One question: the existing recovery methods are ordered from least to most side-effects (NONE < REBIND < BUS_RESET < VENDOR). Where does COLD_RESET fit relative to VENDOR? BIT(4) is after VENDOR (BIT(3)), which implies it's more severe, but the documentation in patch 3 should clarify whether `cold-reset` can be combined with other methods in a bitmask (like REBIND|BUS_RESET is used as the default). A cold-reset is strictly more drastic than a bus-reset, so it should be documented whether userspace should try bus-reset first if both are set. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer