On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:20:42PM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote: >> On 4/13/22 11:20 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:13:06PM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote: >> >> Hi folks: >> >> >> >> Thanks so much for the efforts. I prepared a branch which contains all our patches.The aim of the branch is for the VFIO maintainers to pull the whole bunch easily after the drm-intel-next got merged through drm (as one of the MMIO patches depends on a patch in drm-intel-next). >> >> >> >> I dropped patch 4 and patch 5 as they have been covered by Jani's patches. Some conflicts was solved. >> >> QA is going to test it today. >> >> >> >> You can find it here: >> >> >> >> git clone https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux -b for-christoph >> > >> > There are alot of extra commits on there - is it possible to base this >> > straight on rc1 not on some kind of existing DRM tree? >> > >> > Why did you choose drm/i915/fbc: Call intel_fbc_activate() directly >> > from frontbuffer flush as a base? >> > >> > Jason >> > >> >> Hi Jason: >> >> I updated the branch. You can check if those are what you are expecting. :) > > This is better, except for the first commit: > > [DON'T PULL] drm/i915/dmc: split out dmc registers to a separate file > THIS PATCH WILL GO THROUGH DRM-INTEL-NEXT TO UPSTREAM > > Clean up the massive i915_reg.h a bit with this isolated set of > registers. > > v2: Remove stale comment (Lucas) > > Clean the commit message and send that as a proper PR to > drm-intel-next, then everything else is OK. It's already in drm-intel-next, I guess the problem is basing the branch on something that doesn't have it. I'd probably just base everything cleanly on -rc1, and whoever does the merge between the two will need to account for the missing include in the result. It's just adding one line in the right place. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
