[git pull] drm for v4.7

[Dave Airlie]

On 24 May 2016 at 04:59, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied at linux.ie> wrote:
>>
>> Here's the main drm pull request for 4.7, it's been
>> a busy one, and I've been a bit more distracted in
>> real life this merge window.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I pulled this, but I think I'll have to unpull again.
>
> Neither the diffstat not the shortlog match what you sent me. There's
> four extra commits at the top that aren't mentioned:
>
>   Dave Airlie (3):
>       drm/edid: move displayid tiled block parsing into separate function.
>       drm/edid: move displayid validation to it's own function.
>       drm/edid: add displayid detailed 1 timings to the modelist. (v1.1)
>
>   Tomas Bzatek (1):
>       drm/displayid: Iterate over all DisplayID blocks
>
> was that intentional? What happened? Are those commits meant to be
> merged, or are they wrong? They _look_ ok, but dammit, according to
> your message they shouldn't be there.

Okay they are meant to be in there, I just had them on my merge list,
remembered I hadn't merged them, but had generated a pull request earlier
to edit for you and forgot to regenerate it. I'll follow up with a new
pull request
if you like just to keep things straight.

The "extern C" warnings were one of the patches Arnd sent, I'll follow up with
those today.
>
>
> This is one reason I much prefer getting explicit tags rather than a
> random branch. Did you update the branch on purpose and wanted me to
> get the new state, or did you update the branch just because you
> happened to do development on that branch and pushed it out? With an
> explicit tag, there's a much more _intentional_ "push this to Linus"
> thing going on, and it's less ambiguous in cases like this.

I'll try and do explicit tags from now on, it should stop me doing
stupid things as well.

Dave.