On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:49:35PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Ben Widawsky > <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The following patches are the backported "simple" fixes for 3.14. Some > > of these already had Cc: stable on them, but required conflict > > resolution which I've provided (presumably they canbe dropped if it's > > easier for upstream). There will be another series of backports which > > has fixes that require more than a single patch. > > > > I will not have a machine to test these on until Monday, but I am > > mailing them out now in case our QA can get it tested sooner. > > > > Ben Widawsky (2): > > drm/i915/bdw: Use scratch page table for GEN8 PPGTT > > drm/i915/bdw: Restore PPAT on thaw > > > > Damien Lespiau (1): > > drm/i915/bdw: The TLB invalidation mechanism has been removed from > > INSTPM > > > > Jani Nikula (1): > > drm/i915: don't flood the logs about bdw semaphores > > > > Kenneth Graunke (2): > > drm/i915: Add a partial instruction shootdown workaround on Broadwell. > > drm/i915: Add thread stall DOP clock gating workaround on Broadwell. > > > > Mika Kuoppala (2): > > drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8 > > drm/i915: Do forcewake reset on gen8 > > > > Ville Syrjälä (4): > > drm/i915: Disable semaphore wait event idle message on BDW > > drm/i915: Implement WaDisableSDEUnitClockGating:bdw > > drm/i915: We implement WaDisableAsyncFlipPerfMode:bdw > > drm/i915: Don't clobber CHICKEN_PIPESL_1 on BDW > > The stable team requires a reference to the sha1 of the upstream > commit, which your patches seem to lack. git cherry-pick -x > automatically adds that for you. I decided not to do this because in the git help it says, "This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts." I believe only one of these patches didn't actually have a conflict (so I should have done it for that). So I will assume I should ignore this recommendation from the git help. I didn't want to make it seem like these patches did not have conflicts. > > Also please don't send out backports to stable if we still want to do > some testing on them. Adding Greg and stable so he knows that he can > bin this series for now. Of course all the patches in here which > already have cc: stable in upstream should still go through the normal > process (presuming they don't conflict ofc). But since most of these > patches are from drm-intel-next we must wait anyway until drm-next has > been merged into Linus' tree. > Since you added Greg, I am curious - as noted in the cover letter, I've done the merge conflict resolution on the patches which already had Cc: stable. I didn't intentionally include any patches which already had Cc: stable and didn't require conflict resolution. Are those interesting/useful, should I drop them from the series? > Thanks, Daniel > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 5 ++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 7 +++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 12 +++++++++--- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 29 +++++++++++++++-------------- > > 6 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
