Re: [PATCH i-g-t v7 09/16] drm-uapi/xe: Sync with eudebug uapi

["Manszewski, Christoph" <christoph.manszewski@intel.com>]

Hi Ville,

On 26.09.2024 11:46, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Manszewski, Christoph wrote:
>> Hi Ville,
>>
>> On 25.09.2024 21:23, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 01:30:10PM +0200, Christoph Manszewski wrote:
>>>> From: Dominik Grzegorzek <dominik.grzegorzek@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Align with kernel commit 09411c6ecbef ("drm/xe/eudebug: Add debug
>>>> metadata support for xe_eudebug") from:
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/miku/kernel.git
>>>>
>>>> which introduces most recent changes to the eudebug uapi.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Grzegorzek <dominik.grzegorzek@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Manszewski <christoph.manszewski@intel.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/drm-uapi/xe_drm_eudebug.h | 341 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> I don't think non-upstream stuff should go here. This
>>> will now screw up anyone (namely me) attempting to do
>>> a bulk update the uapi headers.
>>
>> Can you share how exactly? And also where it should go according to
>> you/how that would fix the problem?
> 
> include/drm-uapi-experimental or something?

Sure, I'll try to move it.

> 
>>
>> In general, the kernel reference for this series tries to keep up with
>> the latest Xe driver. If there is some breaking change in the Xe uapi,
>> then just let us know, we will adapt this header ourselves.
> 
> I don't care what's in the header. If I simply follow the documented
> procedure to update the headers this header is going to be deleted.

Fair point, now I see that the documented way is to remove everything.

Thanks,
Christoph

> 
> And the fact that the eudebug stuff is disabled by default in
> meson_options means that I probably wouldn't even notice that
> anything broke. This time I did catch the issue manually because
> having a header completely deleted looked a bit suspicious in
> the diffstat.
> 
> One hopes that CI would also have caught it, but I don't actually
> know whether CI enables this stuff either? >