Re: [PATCH 00/12] Broadwell 3.14 backports

Daniel Vetter
2014-03-22T11:29:25Z

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 05:17:34PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 05:06:06PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:47:05PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > I have no idea what is going on here, what this original email was from
> > > / about, or what I am supposed to do here...
> > >
> > > The stable patch process is pretty well defined, and documented, is that
> > > lacking somehow, and if so, in what?
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > My apologies, I didn't understand what Daniel had originally wanted from
> > me, and I think the plan changed a bit in flight. I'm sorry you got
> > dragged into it. The stable process documentation is perfectly adequate.
> >
>
> And if it wasn't clear, like Daniel said, please ignore these 12 patches
> for now. Sorry again.

For clarification: BDW support was enabled for the first time in 3.14, but
in the -rc phase suddenly lots of workaround patches and little fixes
start to pile in. Since pretty much no one has the hardware already I
decided to withold all bdw fixes and queued them for -next. Once it all
stabilized we could then reevaluate whether bdw support in 3.14 makes
sense or not, i.e. whether to backport a pile of fixes or just disable it
again.

bdw seems to have calmed down now and it doesn't look too bad (it's a bit
more than these 12 patches here, but all fairly isolated), so I've asked
Ben to assemble the required patches, backport and test them and then
submit it all to stable (once drm-next has landed, ofc). Ben was a bit
overeager and submitted them to stable a bit too early ;-)

My apologies for the fuzz and my unclear communication.

Cheers, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch