[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/3] drm/i915: pass intel_crtc as argument for intel_enable_pipe

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-02-10 15:23 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:17:03PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:51:09PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>>> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>>> >
>>> > We want to remove those 3 boolean arguments. This is the first step.
>>> > The "pipe" passed as the argument is always intel_crtc->pipe.
>>> >
>>> > Also adjust the function documentation.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com>
>>
>> Ok, I've pulled in the entire series, but a bunch of things changed so had
>> to resolve some (minor) conflicts. Please double-check that I didn't botch
>> things up too badly.
>
> You forgot to apply patch 2, and this is probably the reason why every
> subsequent patch gave you a conflict.

The conflicts where actually with one of Ville's patches to move the
plane enabling around. I've fixed those up but apparently then missed
the other conflict hidden underneath those.

> You also applied patch 3 twice: once for Ironlake and once for
> Haswell. You shouldn't change the Ironlake function.
>
> Do you plan to rebase or do I need to submit patches on top?

I've applied the missing patched and dropped the ironlake patch of the
double-merged one. So if the new tree looks ok no need to resend
anything.

> IMHO if a series starts getting messy to apply, I think you should
> probably just ask the author to rebase and resend the final stuff.
> Maybe with this we would be able to reduce the amount of bad merges,
> which is becoming a very common problem, at least for my patches.

The problem is that small conflicts are really common, both because I
want people to submit against drm-intel-nightly (so that I can do the
backmerging and branch shuffling correctly) and because of our
development speed. I don't think me asking for rebases in all these
cases is the better option. I tend to poke people to double-check when
I screw things up, but I guess it's just been bad luck that recently
the conflict fallout has always hit your patches :(

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch