On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/04/2018 15:45:44+0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:36:15 EEST Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>> > > It's been a while since we introduced drm_dev{get/put} functions
>> > > to replace reference/unreference in drm subsystem for the
>> > > consistency purpose. So, with this patch, let's just replace
>> > > all current use cases of drm_dev_unref() with drm_dev_put and remove
>> > > the function itself.
>> > >
>> > > Coccinelle was used for mass-patching.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Thanks for doing this. Unfortunately drm moves pretty fast, so already a
>> > conflict when I tried to apply this. Some drivers are also in their own
>> > trees, so this might lead to more fun :-/
>> >
>> > Can you pls split it up per-driver (just the directories under
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/ is enough)? Final patch to remove the function might then
>> > get stalled a bit ofc.
>>
>> I requested a single patch instead of splitting it per driver, you might want
>> to blame me for that.
>>
>
> Doesn't splitting the change per driver break bisectability unless there
> is a guarantee that the change in include/drm/drm_drv.h is applied after
> all the driver trees have been merged?
That's why I said the final patch will likely take a bit longer to get
merged, since we have to wait until all the trees converge again. But
since I have conflicts already looks like we can't take the shortcut
:-(
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
