[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/71] drm/i915/chv: Add Cherryview support

[S, Deepak]

On 4/10/2014 7:34 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 04:41:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:31:39AM +0530, S, Deepak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2014 1:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:42:42AM +0530, S, Deepak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/9/2014 10:23 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:05:27PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 02:30:52PM +0000, S, Deepak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Ville,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am Ok with  cleaning up and pushing the Code. Can you please tell me
>>>>>>>>> when we need to start pushing the code and branch to use
>>>>>>>>> (drm-intel-next)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well you can consider it pushed now that it's in the open. The patches
>>>>>>>> just need a bit of extra polish I think. Well, unless you're planning
>>>>>>>> a full blown rewrite of the code ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you need to take into consideration whatever bdw rc6/rps patches
>>>>>>>> are still in flight, but since you've been doing some review there I
>>>>>>>> think you have a better idea than I do how things are progressing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always work on top of nightly, so I guess that's a good choice :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, -nightly is always the recommended branch to base upstream patches
>>>>>>> on. I'll sort out the conflict mess (or well, try to) if it doesn't apply
>>>>>>> to plain dinq or some other branch. drm-intel-next tends to be too
>>>>>>> outdated ;-)
>>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Daniel/Ville.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the patches are lined up for squashing right? So you want me
>>>>>> to work on this patches to align to upstream code and resubmit it to
>>>>>> same email thread?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, I expect this chv thread to become a bit mess really quickly tbh ;-)
>>>>> And since we don't have chv merged yet there's not really a baseline to do
>>>>> this on top.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the simplest approach would be for you to grab ville's chv tree,
>>>>> squash in the patches as discussed and then just starting on polishing
>>>>> your chv patches. Then as I pull in patches from this series you can drop
>>>>> them from yours. A bit messy, but I don't see any other approach really.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that a pile of people are signed up to review this, so maybe hold off
>>>>> a bit until the review for your patches have been done.
>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Daniel.
>>>> Ville can you please share your chv tree details?
>>>
>>> I rebased the lot and pushed here:
>>> git://gitorious.org/vsyrjala/linux.git chv_rebase
>>
>> /me being lazy, did you squash/reorder patches, i.e. do the patch #
>> assignments [1] for review still apply?
>
> The numbers would get shifted around a bit due to two these two patches
> already getting merged:
>   drm/i915/chv: IS_BROADWELL() should not be true for Cherryview
>   drm/i915/chv: Add IS_CHERRYVIEW() macro
>
> And this patch got dropped as it no longer applies:
>   drm/i915/chv: Add plane C support
>
> Apart from that no reordering/squashing.
>
>>
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://mid.gmane.org/20140410110857.GW18465@intel.com
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ville Syrjälä
>>> Intel OTC
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Hi Ville,

Have you already squashed some of the RC6/turbo patches? Or you want me 
to do it as part of RC6/RPS rework patches submission.

Thanks
Deepak