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

[Paulo Zanoni]

2014-02-11 15:09 GMT-02:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com>:
> 2014-02-11 13:44 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>> 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.

Doesn't look ok yet.

So previously I had "[PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after
enabling pipe on HSW", which removes a wait_for_vblank on HSW.

Then on "[PATCH 7/8] drm/i915: remove wait_for_vblank argument form
intel_enable_pipe" we just change the function parameters without
changing the function behavior.

With this, if we bisect something to patch 2 we know the problem is
that we stopped waiting for a vblank, and if we bisect to patch 7 we
know the problem is something else.

But since you just skipped patch 2, patch 7 is now more than just a
coding style change: it actually does what patch 2 was supposed to do.
So in a way, we can say patch 2 is not really necessary, but it was
written weeks before patch 7, and patch 7 should be just a result of
the review comments.

And the version of "drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after enabling
pipe on HSW" which you just committed as a last patch instead of
second patch (the one that changes the argument to
intel_crtc_update_cursor) is just plain wrong. That needs to be
reverted. So either we add the original patch 2 at the right place, or
we completely discard it...

I know it's common to change the patch ordering when applying to our
trees, but it can be quite dangerous...

Thanks,
Paulo

>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Zanoni



-- 
Paulo Zanoni