2014-02-11 15:09 GMT-02:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2014-02-11 13:44 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 2014-02-10 15:23 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:17:03PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:51:09PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >>>>> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> > >>>>> > We want to remove those 3 boolean arguments. This is the first step. >>>>> > The "pipe" passed as the argument is always intel_crtc->pipe. >>>>> > >>>>> > Also adjust the function documentation. >>>>> > >>>>> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Ok, I've pulled in the entire series, but a bunch of things changed so had >>>> to resolve some (minor) conflicts. Please double-check that I didn't botch >>>> things up too badly. >>> >>> You forgot to apply patch 2, and this is probably the reason why every >>> subsequent patch gave you a conflict. >> >> The conflicts where actually with one of Ville's patches to move the >> plane enabling around. I've fixed those up but apparently then missed >> the other conflict hidden underneath those. >> >>> You also applied patch 3 twice: once for Ironlake and once for >>> Haswell. You shouldn't change the Ironlake function. >>> >>> Do you plan to rebase or do I need to submit patches on top? >> >> I've applied the missing patched and dropped the ironlake patch of the >> double-merged one. So if the new tree looks ok no need to resend >> anything. Doesn't look ok yet. So previously I had "[PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after enabling pipe on HSW", which removes a wait_for_vblank on HSW. Then on "[PATCH 7/8] drm/i915: remove wait_for_vblank argument form intel_enable_pipe" we just change the function parameters without changing the function behavior. With this, if we bisect something to patch 2 we know the problem is that we stopped waiting for a vblank, and if we bisect to patch 7 we know the problem is something else. But since you just skipped patch 2, patch 7 is now more than just a coding style change: it actually does what patch 2 was supposed to do. So in a way, we can say patch 2 is not really necessary, but it was written weeks before patch 7, and patch 7 should be just a result of the review comments. And the version of "drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after enabling pipe on HSW" which you just committed as a last patch instead of second patch (the one that changes the argument to intel_crtc_update_cursor) is just plain wrong. That needs to be reverted. So either we add the original patch 2 at the right place, or we completely discard it... I know it's common to change the patch ordering when applying to our trees, but it can be quite dangerous... Thanks, Paulo >> >>> IMHO if a series starts getting messy to apply, I think you should >>> probably just ask the author to rebase and resend the final stuff. >>> Maybe with this we would be able to reduce the amount of bad merges, >>> which is becoming a very common problem, at least for my patches. >> >> The problem is that small conflicts are really common, both because I >> want people to submit against drm-intel-nightly (so that I can do the >> backmerging and branch shuffling correctly) and because of our >> development speed. I don't think me asking for rebases in all these >> cases is the better option. I tend to poke people to double-check when >> I screw things up, but I guess it's just been bad luck that recently >> the conflict fallout has always hit your patches :( >> >> Cheers, Daniel >> -- >> Daniel Vetter >> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation >> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > > > > -- > Paulo Zanoni -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
