On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 01:33:29PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Op 23-09-15 om 11:01 schreef Jani Nikula: > >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Nothing good can come from detaching scalers or updating pipe config > >>> when the crtc is already disabled. Touching registers while the crtc > >>> and power wells are disabled causes unclaimed register access warnings. > >> -fixes maintainer grumble. How am I supposed to decipher from this > >> Subject: line and commit message whether this is a real fix to a real > >> problem out there, and therefore to be queued for current -rc > >> development kernels and possibly cc: stable, or not? > >> > >> When in doubt, I usually shrug it off, and decide it's for > >> drm-intel-next-queued, and therefore SEP. > >> > > It's for v4.3, so -fixes. Should I explicitly mention it in the commit > > message next time? > > If you have that information, please do. If not in the commit message, > then either as a comment after the --- line or in the subject as [PATCH > for v4.3] or something. Otherwise you'll be relying on my competence too > much. ;) What you really should do is mention which commit broke stuff and if applicable, add a Bugzilla: link. That's required information anyway for regression fixes, and we have maintainer scripts to tell us where to place the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
