From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: rip out intel_dpio_write again
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 13:18:56 -0700
Message-ID: <20120502131856.5375aa47@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1335949584-10507-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<20120502084427.7f0050c2@bwidawsk.net>
	<20120502115548.0cecafac@jbarnes-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24EFA0A30
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed,  2 May 2012 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120502115548.0cecafac@jbarnes-desktop>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, 2 May 2012 11:55:48 -0700
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:44:27 -0700
> Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed,  2 May 2012 11:06:23 +0200
> > Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > > Unfortunately it looks like further vlv patches are still stalled due
> > > to fried hw, and too many people are a bit annoyed about the unused
> > > function warning.
> > 
> > It is my preference that you never merge code which you know will
> > produce a warning. I still stand by adding a __used for intermediate
> > patches.
> 
> Well he could have just merged the other patches too, but nooo...
> 

Twasn't a shot at you... shot was fired at Daniel (although if you *did*
but in __used I wouldn't have had to shoot at Daniel).


-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center