[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/12] Broadwell 3.14 backports

[Ben Widawsky]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:49:35PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Ben Widawsky
> <benjamin.widawsky at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > The following patches are the backported "simple" fixes for 3.14. Some
> > of these already had Cc: stable on them, but required conflict
> > resolution which I've provided (presumably they canbe dropped if it's
> > easier for upstream). There will be another series of backports which
> > has fixes that require more than a single patch.
> >
> > I will not have a machine to test these on until Monday, but I am
> > mailing them out now in case our QA can get it tested sooner.
> >
> > Ben Widawsky (2):
> >   drm/i915/bdw: Use scratch page table for GEN8 PPGTT
> >   drm/i915/bdw: Restore PPAT on thaw
> >
> > Damien Lespiau (1):
> >   drm/i915/bdw: The TLB invalidation mechanism has been removed from
> >     INSTPM
> >
> > Jani Nikula (1):
> >   drm/i915: don't flood the logs about bdw semaphores
> >
> > Kenneth Graunke (2):
> >   drm/i915: Add a partial instruction shootdown workaround on Broadwell.
> >   drm/i915: Add thread stall DOP clock gating workaround on Broadwell.
> >
> > Mika Kuoppala (2):
> >   drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8
> >   drm/i915: Do forcewake reset on gen8
> >
> > Ville Syrjälä (4):
> >   drm/i915: Disable semaphore wait event idle message on BDW
> >   drm/i915: Implement WaDisableSDEUnitClockGating:bdw
> >   drm/i915: We implement WaDisableAsyncFlipPerfMode:bdw
> >   drm/i915: Don't clobber CHICKEN_PIPESL_1 on BDW
> 
> The stable team requires a reference to the sha1 of the upstream
> commit, which your patches seem to lack. git cherry-pick -x
> automatically adds that for you.

I decided not to do this because in the git help it says,
"This is done only for cherry picks without conflicts." I believe only
one of these patches didn't actually have a conflict (so I should have
done it for that). So I will assume I should ignore this recommendation
from the git help. I didn't want to make it seem like these patches did
not have conflicts.

> 
> Also please don't send out backports to stable if we still want to do
> some testing on them. Adding Greg and stable so he knows that he can
> bin this series for now. Of course all the patches in here which
> already have cc: stable in upstream should still go through the normal
> process (presuming they don't conflict ofc). But since most of these
> patches are from drm-intel-next we must wait anyway until drm-next has
> been merged into Linus' tree.
> 

Since you added Greg, I am curious - as noted in the cover letter, I've
done the merge conflict resolution on the patches which already had Cc:
stable. I didn't intentionally include any patches which already had Cc:
stable and didn't require conflict resolution. Are those
interesting/useful, should I drop them from the series?

> Thanks, Daniel
> 
> >
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c         |  5 ++++-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c     |  7 +++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h         | 10 ++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c         | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 12 +++++++++---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c     | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >  6 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center