[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: Colocate all GT access routines in the same file

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:02:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Currently, the register access code is split between i915_drv.c and
> > > intel_pm.c. It only bares a superficial resemblance to the reset of the
> > > powermanagement code, so move it all into its own file. This is to ease
> > > further patches to enforce serialised register access.
> > > 
> > > v2: Scan for random abuse of I915_WRITE_NOTRACE
> > > v3: Take the opportunity to rename the GT functions as uncore. Uncore is
> > > the term used by the hardware design (and bspec) for all functions
> > > outside of the GPU (and CPU) cores in what is also known as the System
> > > Agent.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> > 
> > I've tried to apply it, but this patch does way to many things at once. So
> > the oddball change we have compared to the baseline of these patches
> > resulted in conflict hell.
> > 
> > And it's too big for -fixes. Imo the following should be dropped, at least
> > for -fixes:
> > - renaming stuff from gt to uncore
> > - moving code to intel_uncore.c which we don't strictly need to apply the
> >   bugfix like the reset code.
> > 
> > So just a plain boring "move code together" patch.
> 
> I've forgotten to add: For -fixes I want to only merge up to "drm/i915:
> Serialize all register access", so wrestling just those patches is ok. We
> can slurp the later ones (I do like them) once I've done a backmerge into
> dinq.

I disagree, the 6 line patch seems quite adequate for stable.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre