On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:57:43PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote: >>On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>So to clarify, it looks like we have a bunch of revid changes to the >>display code that got merged to the gt-next tree but not to the >>intel-next tree? Should we be going back and also merging / >>cherry-picking those over to intel-next since that's where the display >>changes are supposed to go, or is it too late to do that cleanly at this >>point? > > it was my mistake to merge them to drm-intel-gt-next. They should have > been in drm-intel-next. That's not the problem though. The branches generally being too far apart atm is. The single cherry-pick won't solve that. Applying these patches to one tree just adds a dependency that will not be around in the topic branch baseline, creating a new problem for merging the topic branch. >>Going forward, what should the general strategy be for stuff like >>platform definitions and such? Merge such enablement patches to both > > last time we talked about this was regarding dg1 AFAIR and the consensus > was to create a topic branch and that topic branch to be merged in both > branches. That would avoid having 2 commits in different branches. Agreed. > Not sure if it would work out nicely for getting test on CI though. > Since the changes are spread through the codebase, we could very easily > hit a situation that this topic branch creates conflicts for other > patches getting merged on either drm-intel-next or drm-intel-gt-next. The cycle in review -> apply to topic branch -> merge topic branch just needs to be short enough. We can't have the topic branch laying around for more than maybe a few days, or we'll have problems. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
