On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 15:38 +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > > On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote: > > > > Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström > > > > > <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel): > > > > > > > > > On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to > > > > > > > > > > merge a large patch > > > > > > > > > > set for TTM through drm-misc-next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if > > > > > > > > > > you try to push > > > > > > > > > > your changes through the Intel tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > > > > OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding > > > > > > > > > the TTM patches to > > > > > > > > > drm-misc-next when your set has landed? > > > > > > > > I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more > > > > > > > > for review, then > > > > > > > > push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as > > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should be able to land your stuff to > > > > > > > > drm-misc-next and rebase on > > > > > > > > the end result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be > > > > > > > > merged to drm-next > > > > > > > > before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land > > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > topic branch, > > > > > > > and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc- > > > > > > > next and > > > > > > > drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too > > > > > > > bad (I haven't > > > > > > > looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm > > > > > > > in detail). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics > > > > > > > takes > > > > > > > longer than > > > > > > > just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready. > > > > > > > -Daniel > > > > > > Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the > > > > > > iterator-based > > > > > > move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one > > > > > > and needed to > > > > > > support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor > > > > > > changes to be > > > > > > able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A > > > > > > necessary evil. > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes > > > > > > already, in > > > > > > particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the > > > > > > main > > > > > > conflict I think. > > > > Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve > > > > at least a > > > > bit of the conflict. > > > > > > > > > > Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main > > > > > > remaining part? > > > > Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and > > > > I'm good to > > > > go as well > > > > > > > > > > That will probably cause some conflicts with already > > > > > > pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict > > > > > > with the > > > > > > rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible > > > > > > to bring in > > > > > > our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've > > > > > > already > > > > > > pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained. > > > > > I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once > > > > > the ttm > > > > > bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then > > > > > pull that > > > > > into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze > > > > > is also > > > > > approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like - > > > > > rc2 when > > > > > drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch > > > > > logistics in > > > > > drm-misc.git for this. > > > > That approach sounds good to me as well. > > > > > > > > The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing > > > > we > > > > couldn't fix. > > > OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess. > > > > > > From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally > > > and can be > > > merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor > > > conflict > > > with your 10 patches I think, if any. > > > > > > Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt- > > > next I > > > think. > > > > > > Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc- > > > next. > > > > > > So We could have pull order > > > > > > - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches, > > > - drm-intel-gt-next > > > - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards, > > > - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch. > > If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with careful > > merge > > order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm > > topic > > branch only when we're back to -rc2. > > I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and ran > into > minor merge conflicts in drm-tip. > > I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip handling. > > Christian. Np, I'll hold off until Monday. /Thomas
