From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Broadwell 3.14 backports Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:47:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20140321234705.GA9504@kroah.com> References: <1395427701-13434-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@linux.intel.com> <20140321221448.GA16674@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140321221448.GA16674@linux.intel.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Widawsky Cc: Daniel Vetter , stable , Intel GFX , James Ausmus , Jani Nikula List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.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 > > 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 w= hich > > > 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 f= rom > > > 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 Bro= adwell. > > > drm/i915: Add thread stall DOP clock gating workaround on Broad= well. > > > > > > Mika Kuoppala (2): > > > drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8 > > > drm/i915: Do forcewake reset on gen8 > > > > > > Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 (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 > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > I decided not to do this because in the git help it says, > "This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts." I believe onl= y > one of these patches didn't actually have a conflict (so I should hav= e > done it for that). So I will assume I should ignore this recommendati= on > from the git help. I didn't want to make it seem like these patches d= id > not have conflicts. >=20 > >=20 > > 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 ca= n > > bin this series for now. Of course all the patches in here which > > already have cc: stable in upstream should still go through the nor= mal > > process (presuming they don't conflict ofc). But since most of thes= e > > patches are from drm-intel-next we must wait anyway until drm-next = has > > been merged into Linus' tree. > >=20 >=20 > 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 C= c: > 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 tha= t lacking somehow, and if so, in what? greg k-h