Re: [PATCH 00/12] Broadwell 3.14 backports

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 03:14:48PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:49:35PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Ben Widawsky
> > <benjamin.widawsky@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > The following patches are the backported "simple" fixes for 3.14. Some
> > > of these already had Cc: stable on them, but required conflict
> > > resolution which I've provided (presumably they canbe dropped if it's
> > > easier for upstream). There will be another series of backports which
> > > has fixes that require more than a single patch.
> > >
> > > I will not have a machine to test these on until Monday, but I am
> > > mailing them out now in case our QA can get it tested sooner.
> > >
> > > Ben Widawsky (2):
> > >   drm/i915/bdw: Use scratch page table for GEN8 PPGTT
> > >   drm/i915/bdw: Restore PPAT on thaw
> > >
> > > Damien Lespiau (1):
> > >   drm/i915/bdw: The TLB invalidation mechanism has been removed from
> > >     INSTPM
> > >
> > > Jani Nikula (1):
> > >   drm/i915: don't flood the logs about bdw semaphores
> > >
> > > Kenneth Graunke (2):
> > >   drm/i915: Add a partial instruction shootdown workaround on Broadwell.
> > >   drm/i915: Add thread stall DOP clock gating workaround on Broadwell.
> > >
> > > Mika Kuoppala (2):
> > >   drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8
> > >   drm/i915: Do forcewake reset on gen8
> > >
> > > Ville Syrjälä (4):
> > >   drm/i915: Disable semaphore wait event idle message on BDW
> > >   drm/i915: Implement WaDisableSDEUnitClockGating:bdw
> > >   drm/i915: We implement WaDisableAsyncFlipPerfMode:bdw
> > >   drm/i915: Don't clobber CHICKEN_PIPESL_1 on BDW
> > 
> > The stable team requires a reference to the sha1 of the upstream
> > commit, which your patches seem to lack. git cherry-pick -x
> > automatically adds that for you.
> 
> I decided not to do this because in the git help it says,
> "This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts." I believe only
> one of these patches didn't actually have a conflict (so I should have
> done it for that). So I will assume I should ignore this recommendation
> from the git help. I didn't want to make it seem like these patches did
> not have conflicts.
> 
> > 
> > Also please don't send out backports to stable if we still want to do
> > some testing on them. Adding Greg and stable so he knows that he can
> > bin this series for now. Of course all the patches in here which
> > already have cc: stable in upstream should still go through the normal
> > process (presuming they don't conflict ofc). But since most of these
> > patches are from drm-intel-next we must wait anyway until drm-next has
> > been merged into Linus' tree.
> > 
> 
> Since you added Greg, I am curious - as noted in the cover letter, I've
> done the merge conflict resolution on the patches which already had Cc:
> stable. I didn't intentionally include any patches which already had Cc:
> stable and didn't require conflict resolution. Are those
> interesting/useful, should I drop them from the series?

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