From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: Colocate all GT access routines in the same file Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:53:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20130718155352.GT4550@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1374001336-10339-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20130718121559.GQ4550@phenom.ffwll.local> <20130718122958.GC2458@cantiga.alporthouse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727CFE5CB4 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f54.google.com with SMTP id t10so1837731eei.13 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130718122958.GC2458@cantiga.alporthouse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Chris Wilson , Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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 > > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky > > > > 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