On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:02:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Currently, the register access code is split between i915_drv.c and > > > intel_pm.c. It only bares a superficial resemblance to the reset of the > > > powermanagement code, so move it all into its own file. This is to ease > > > further patches to enforce serialised register access. > > > > > > v2: Scan for random abuse of I915_WRITE_NOTRACE > > > v3: Take the opportunity to rename the GT functions as uncore. Uncore is > > > the term used by the hardware design (and bspec) for all functions > > > outside of the GPU (and CPU) cores in what is also known as the System > > > Agent. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I've tried to apply it, but this patch does way to many things at once. So > > the oddball change we have compared to the baseline of these patches > > resulted in conflict hell. > > > > And it's too big for -fixes. Imo the following should be dropped, at least > > for -fixes: > > - renaming stuff from gt to uncore > > - moving code to intel_uncore.c which we don't strictly need to apply the > > bugfix like the reset code. > > > > So just a plain boring "move code together" patch. > > I've forgotten to add: For -fixes I want to only merge up to "drm/i915: > Serialize all register access", so wrestling just those patches is ok. We > can slurp the later ones (I do like them) once I've done a backmerge into > dinq. I disagree, the 6 line patch seems quite adequate for stable. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
