From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] Updated stolen mem patches Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:34:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20130827093454.GJ26909@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1374870772-4592-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1374870772-4592-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jesse Barnes Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 01:32:50PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > These address the comments I've received so far, but omit the new E820 > type for this mem. > > Chris's patches could go on top if desired; they add a new type and > resource reservation function for looking up regions by name. That > allows us to remove some duplicate code in the driver for finding stolen > space. > > But I think these two are ready as-is. How should we merge them? Just > through the i915 tree since the first one touches our headers? that and > there probably won't be conflicts on the early-quirks file; that's not > touch too often... Just noticed that these patches aren't in -next yet - somehow I've thought they'd go in in through the x86 tree. Ingo et al: Should I merge these through drm-intel-next or will you pick them up? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch