Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: Colocate all GT access routines in the same file

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 01:29:58PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:02:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Currently, the register access code is split between i915_drv.c and
> > > intel_pm.c. It only bares a superficial resemblance to the reset of the
> > > powermanagement code, so move it all into its own file. This is to ease
> > > further patches to enforce serialised register access.
> > > 
> > > v2: Scan for random abuse of I915_WRITE_NOTRACE
> > > v3: Take the opportunity to rename the GT functions as uncore. Uncore is
> > > the term used by the hardware design (and bspec) for all functions
> > > outside of the GPU (and CPU) cores in what is also known as the System
> > > Agent.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> > 
> > I've tried to apply it, but this patch does way to many things at once. So
> > the oddball change we have compared to the baseline of these patches
> > resulted in conflict hell.
> 
> The conflict is trivial.

Yeah it's just a few lines that I'd need to copy around, but git am
refused to apply the patch due to lack of a baseline and wiggle made one
giant mess out of it. So I've given up, especially since I've inked in a
tedious rebase tour for -internal today. At least that one worked
better than planned ;-)

My plan was kinda to apply the first 4 patches to -fixes since they're the
more correct solution and we're fairly early, and only backport the
minimal change. But if you think it's better to put the entire series into
dinq and only the minimal fix into -fixes with cc: stable I can do that,
too. Wrt the minimal fix I haven't found it on the mailing list, pointers
for the blind?

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