[GIT PULL] drm/imx: pending update handling, plane zpos property

[Philipp Zabel]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 21:20 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:50:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:19:18PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 14:06 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:06:38PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > > Hi Dave, Daniel,
> > > > > 
> > > > > please consider merging these imx-drm updates for v5.1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The branch sits on top of yesterday's drm/imx fixes and adds support for
> > > > > pending update handling, plane zpos property, builds under COMPILE_TEST
> > > > > on all platforms.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: tags aren't up to what sfr in linux-next is checking recently:
> > > 
> > > Unfortunatly I only got the warning once the patches were already merged
> > > into drm-fixes, even though they had been in linux-next via imx-drm/next 
> > > for a while.
> > 
> > That's why the checks are now in our maintainer tools too, to catch them
> > before they land anywhere.

Excellent, thank you.

> > > > dim: 7e92397d3a83 ("drm/imx: ipuv3-plane: add zpos property"): mandatory review missing.
> > > 
> > > Apart from this one,
> > > 
> > > > dim: bb867d219fda ("gpu: ipu-v3: Fix CSI offsets for imx53"): Fixes: SHA1 needs at least 12 digits:
> > > > dim:     2ffd48f2e7 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Add Camera Sensor Interface unit")
> > > > dim: 2c0408dd0d89 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Fix i.MX51 CSI control registers offset"): Fixes: SHA1 needs at least 12 digits:
> > > > dim:     2ffd48f2e7 ("gpu: ipu-v3: Add Camera Sensor Interface unit")
> > > > dim: 4fb873c9648e ("drm/imx: ignore plane updates on disabled crtcs"): mandatory review missing.
> > > 
> > > these are part of the already merged imx-drm-fixes-2019-02-12 tag.
> > > Should I fix and recreate the imx-drm-fixes tag, and if so, would you
> > > replace the already merged patches in drm-fixes with the new tag?
> > 
> > No rebasing of existing stuff ofc. I didn't even realize that this is also
> > partially in -fixes (yeah I know should have read the cover letter). Need
> > to wait for the next -rc to include those first so that there's a neat
> > backmerge I think, not sure. An ack on the zpos patch should still be
> > nice.



> Discussed the "-fixes in -next" thing with Dave on irc, he's not a huge
> fan of that approach either. Topic branch (if there is a need),
> cherry-picking (with reasons), or just plain separate branches all
> preferred to stacking -next on top of -fixes.

Understood.

I'm embarrassed to realize that stacking the two wasn't even necessary.
I'll rebase the -next and send a proper pull request without the -fixes
in there.

regards
Philipp