On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: >> Hi, >> >> just another "Friday patch". While reviewing some patches from >> Tejas I found a bit confusing the use of dev_priv__ inside the >> for_each_engine(), perhaps it should be moved inside the gt/? >> >> As I was at it I made the /dev_priv/i915/ change which is still >> harmless. Next in queue is to change the i915_irq.h, which is a >> bit tricky (but not much) as the "dev_priv" is hardcoded inside >> some defines. >> >> Andi >> >> Andi Shyti (2): >> drm/i915/i915_drv: Use proper parameter naming in for_each_gt() >> drm/i915/i915_drv: Use i915 instead of dev_priv insied the file_priv >> structure >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 462 ++++++++++++++++---------------- >> 1 file changed, 231 insertions(+), 231 deletions(-) > > Pushed to dmr-intel-gt-next. That's going to create problems for us for weeks to come. I'm actually tempted to ask Joonas or Tvrtko to just force push that out of there. Only use drm-intel-gt-next for stuff that's specifically about gt or gem, and touches files used by gt or gem only. For everything else, use drm-intel-next. When in doubt, err on the side of drm-intel-next. It's not enough that one of the patches changes parameters of for_each_gt() macro. We can cross-merge drm-intel-next to drm-intel-gt-next, but we can't cross-merge drm-intel-gt-next to drm-intel-next. This means the only way to sync those i915_drv.h changes to drm-intel-next is to have a drm-intel-gt-next pull request merged to drm-next, and then backmerged to drm-intel-next. That's not going to happen for several weeks. Any change aimed at drm-intel-next that conflicts with the i915_drv.h changes will now be pending on those merges. BR, Jani. > > Thanks Rodrigo and Andrzej for your review. > > Andi -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
