On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 03:43:35PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Harsha Sharma (2017-10-08 15:04:07)
>> > @@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static bool intel_fbdev_init_bios(struct drm_device *dev,
>> > ifbdev->preferred_bpp = fb->base.format->cpp[0] * 8;
>> > ifbdev->fb = fb;
>> >
>> > - drm_framebuffer_reference(&ifbdev->fb->base);
>> > + drm_framebuffer_put(&ifbdev->fb->base);
>>
>> Whoops.
>
> Hm yeah, how did this happen? Does cocci really do this, or is that an
> accident from manually fixing stuff up?
Running the spatch from the commit message gives me the correct substitution:
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ static bool intel_fbdev_init_bios(struct drm_device *dev,
ifbdev->preferred_bpp = fb->base.format->cpp[0] * 8;
ifbdev->fb = fb;
- drm_framebuffer_reference(&ifbdev->fb->base);
+ drm_framebuffer_get(&ifbdev->fb->base);
/* Final pass to check if any active pipes don't have fbs */
for_each_crtc(dev, crtc) {
Probably just finger slip since this is the last chunk before the
omitted selftests changes.
Harsha: the "better" way to omit the selftests without hand tuning the
patch would be to run the cocci spatch on i915 as normal, and then run
"git checkout -- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/" before committing.
It's dangerous to edit patches by hand, or to misrepresent a patch as
being the result of a cocci spatch when it's not.
Sean
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
