From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: soc: qcom: ubwc: Add Shikra UBWC config Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:28:18 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260604-shikra-display-v2-3-b3c1b2b67edc@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260604-shikra-display-v2-0-b3c1b2b67edc@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260604-shikra-display-v2-3-b3c1b2b67edc@oss.qualcomm.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 ```diff + { .compatible =3D "qcom,shikra", .data =3D &qcm2290_data, }, ``` Clean one-liner. The entry is correctly placed alphabetically (between `qco= m,sdm845` and `qcom,sm4250`). Mapping to `qcm2290_data` is correct =E2=80= =94 this struct is defined as: ```c static const struct qcom_ubwc_cfg_data qcm2290_data =3D { /* no UBWC */ .highest_bank_bit =3D 15, }; ``` Since Shikra shares the same hardware as QCM2290, using the same UBWC confi= g (which essentially disables UBWC but sets the correct `highest_bank_bit`)= is the right choice. This also addresses the v1 feedback where `no_ubwc_da= ta` was used incorrectly. **Minor:** The commit message is missing a period at the end of "...for the= UBWC settings". Trivial. No functional issues. --- ### Additional notes on the cover letter 1. **Duplicate Subject prefix:** The cover letter subject reads `"Subject: = [PATCH v2 0/3] Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Add Shikra..."` =E2=80=94 the nested `S= ubject:` should be removed. 2. **Stale diffstat:** The first diffstat in the cover letter (lines after = the shortlog) lists `drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 1 +` and cou= nts "5 files changed" while listing 6 files. This is a leftover from v1. Th= e second diffstat (at the bottom) is correct. The stale one should be clean= ed up in a v3 if one is needed. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer