On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > I've done a trial merge into your tree from a few hours ago, there >> > are definitely some slighty messy conflicts, I've pushed a sample >> > branch here: >> >> I appreciate your sample merges since I like verifying my end result, >> but I think your merge is wrong. >> >> I got two differences when I did the merge. The one in >> intel_dp_detect() I think is just syntactic - I ended up placing the >> >> if (!intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) >> intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp); >> >> differently than you did (I did it *after* the tunnel_detect()). >> >> I don't _think,_ that placement matters, but somebody more familiar >> with the code should check it out. Added Animesh and Jani to the >> participants. >> >> But I think your merge gets the TP_printk() for the xe_bo_move trace >> event is actively wrong. You don't have the destination for the move >> in the printk. >> >> Or maybe I got it wrong. Our merges end up _close_, but not identical. > > You are right, I lost a line there, I've repushed mine just for > prosperity with that fixed. > > The other one I'm not sure on and will defer to the i915 maintainers > if ordering matters. I don't think the ordering matters, but Linus' solution matches what we have in our -next, and has been tested. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
