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: Introduce DRM_CAP_ATOMIC_ERROR_REPORTING Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:27:00 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260223-atomic-v10-7-f59c8def2e70@intel.com> References: <20260223-atomic-v10-0-f59c8def2e70@intel.com> <20260223-atomic-v10-7-f59c8def2e70@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 > + case DRM_CAP_ATOMIC_ERROR_REPORTING: > + req->value = drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_ATOMIC) && 1; > + break; The `&& 1` is redundant. `drm_core_check_feature` already returns a boolean-like value. This appears to be copy-paste from `DRM_CAP_ATOMIC_ASYNC_PAGE_FLIP` where `&& dev->mode_config.async_page_flip` checks an actual driver flag. More importantly, this reports error reporting as supported for ALL atomic drivers. But only i915 has been modified to populate any error codes (and even then, only for a few error paths). Compositors checking this capability will expect meaningful error information from any driver, but non-i915 drivers will return a zero-filled error struct (which looks like `DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_INVALID_API_USAGE` due to the enum-starts-at-0 issue). This makes the capability misleading. The cover letter still contains multiple "EDITME" placeholders, and the "Changes in v9" section is unfilled. While not a code issue, this suggests the series was not properly reviewed before posting. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer