On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:50:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:19:18PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 14:06 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:06:38PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > Hi Dave, Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > please consider merging these imx-drm updates for v5.1.
> > > >
> > > > The branch sits on top of yesterday's drm/imx fixes and adds support for
> > > > pending update handling, plane zpos property, builds under COMPILE_TEST
> > > > on all platforms.
> > >
> > > Fixes: tags aren't up to what sfr in linux-next is checking recently:
> >
> > Unfortunatly I only got the warning once the patches were already merged
> > into drm-fixes, even though they had been in linux-next via imx-drm/next
> > for a while.
>
> That's why the checks are now in our maintainer tools too, to catch them
> before they land anywhere.
>
> > > dim: 7e92397d3a83 ("drm/imx: ipuv3-plane: add zpos property"): mandatory review missing.
> >
> > Apart from this one,
> >
> > > dim: bb867d219fda ("gpu: ipu-v3: Fix CSI offsets for imx53"): Fixes: SHA1 needs at least 12 digits:
> > > dim: 2ffd48f2e7 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Add Camera Sensor Interface unit")
> > > dim: 2c0408dd0d89 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Fix i.MX51 CSI control registers offset"): Fixes: SHA1 needs at least 12 digits:
> > > dim: 2ffd48f2e7 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Add Camera Sensor Interface unit")
> > > dim: 4fb873c9648e ("drm/imx: ignore plane updates on disabled crtcs"): mandatory review missing.
> >
> > these are part of the already merged imx-drm-fixes-2019-02-12 tag.
> > Should I fix and recreate the imx-drm-fixes tag, and if so, would you
> > replace the already merged patches in drm-fixes with the new tag?
>
> No rebasing of existing stuff ofc. I didn't even realize that this is also
> partially in -fixes (yeah I know should have read the cover letter). Need
> to wait for the next -rc to include those first so that there's a neat
> backmerge I think, not sure. An ack on the zpos patch should still be
> nice.
Discussed the "-fixes in -next" thing with Dave on irc, he's not a huge
fan of that approach either. Topic branch (if there is a need),
cherry-picking (with reasons), or just plain separate branches all
preferred to stacking -next on top of -fixes.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
