Hi Jani, > >> 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. sorry, I did think of it. But... > It's not enough that one of the patches changes parameters of > for_each_gt() macro. ... I was fooled by the gt/i915 parameter. Thanks and sorry, Andi > 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.
