On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:51:02AM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:47:25PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Liviu, > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:12:19 +0000 Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > That looks like the right fix, thank you for that! > > > > > > Thanks for your verification. > > > > > > > I will roll your patch into my tree. > > > > > > You can only do that when your tree is merged with the drm tree (and > > > it should be part of the merge resolution). > > > > I can also rebase on top of the latest drm-next tree, that should not be > > a problem. > > If you have a lot of patches already rebasing is kinda discouraged. There > might be other stuff that's conflicting and then making your entire tree > non-bisectable (maybe just on one platform that you missed in testing). My tree has always been "unstable", I have been rebasing it on top of latest drm or drm-next in preparation for sending pull requests. I've hoped that people don't depend on the linearity of my tree anyway and it hasn't been an issue so far. TBH, I should've based the latest update of my tree on drm-next anyway, I just started at the time when it was at v5.0-rc1 so I thought it will not matter. Best regards, Liviu > > In that case just send out a pull for drm-next and include the merge > resolution in the pull request so Dave/I can double-check we did it right. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- ==================== | I would like to | | fix the world, | | but they're not | | giving me the | \ source code! / --------------- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
