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

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:19:27PM +0530, S, Deepak wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 outdated ;-)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.

No, I didn't do it. If you can take care of it that'd be great.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC