On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 08:48:16AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 10:43 PM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:09:45PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:00 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > > > <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/14/2019 12:45 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > > > Simply add all pci memory bars to struct apertures_struct in > > > > > > remove_conflicting_pci_framebuffers(), without depending on the > > > > > > res_id parameter. > > > > > > > > > > > > The plan is to drop the res_id parameter later on. For now keep the > > > > > > parameter, use it for sanity-checking and warn on inconsistencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Patch queued for v5.2, thanks. > > > > > > > > Might be good to also stuff this into drm (double merge or topic > > > > branch, whatever you prefer), since that's where all the users are. > > > > Gerd also has some follow-up patches to apply on top of this one iirc. > > > > > > No follow-up patches yet. Plan is to wait a bit, see if the > > > sanity-checks trigger, and if all goes well go drop the res_id > > > parameter in 5.3 ... > > > > Hm I thought you had a patch to convert i915 over. Or did that land already? > > Ah, *that* one. Yep, that is still sitting in a branch here. Didn't > rebase it yet. But I suspect it will be easier to first drop res_id > and then rebase the i915 patch on top of *that*, so I don't have to > figure which i915 revision needs which res_id ... Ok, sounds like a plan for 5.3 somewhen. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
