Re: [PATCH 07/27] drm/i915/icl: Interrupt handling

Jani Nikula
2018-01-26T11:17:21Z

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2018-01-19 18:10:51)
>> Em Sex, 2018-01-19 às 17:30 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin escreveu:
>> > On 10/01/2018 10:16, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> > > If these are in a later patch, should be squashed here.
>> >
>> > It might be possible in some cases, or it might be quite
>> > challenging in others. Need to look into it but no promises. We
>> > might have to live with having place holders like this in the code
>> > which get removed by later patches/series. It's quite complex
>> > logistically to organise multiple series, written by multiple
>> > authors, at different times, and make it look 100% pretty. (And not
>> > just squash and butcher everything up at merge time.)
>>
>> I agree with Tvrtko here and in the other points above. If we take
>> Joonas's point to the extreme, ICL enabling would be a single giant
>> patch. We have to accept that some things are going to be incomplete
>> in the series that enable a platform. We also have the alpha_support
>> option to protect us here, and CI to make sure ICL's incompleteness
>> doesn't affect the other platforms.
>
> Later in this series is a patch which fixes a bug in this patch. That
> certainly needs to be addressed. ;)

Might be helpful to point that out...

As to the larger point of squashing stuff, it's hard to make the
division into patches for large enabling series just right. Sometimes
it's just an arbitrary choice that's been made at some point to not
bloat the patches too much and to not make the rebasing unnecessarily
hard. All other things being equal, I'd err toward whatever gets us
closer to merging the patches.

BR,
Jani.

> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center