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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:17:42PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:14:32PM -0700, Ausmus, James wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 05:51:01PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > >> Let's try this again. I've pushed a branch here:
> > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~bwidawsk/drm-intel/log/?h=bdw-backports
> > >>
> > >> I need to re-review some of the merge conflicts for 4g GGTT, which I
> > >> will try to do before Monday.
> > >>
> > >> Daniel: please make sure this is what you had in mind. I don't know
> > >> where you want Cc: stable tags.
> > >
> > > We don't need cc: stable, we just need to submit it (since it has the
> > > upstream sha1s already, which is the requirement for stable patches). Cc:
> > > stable is only for when you want it to get backport anyway. Otherwise
> > > looks good. I dunno whether git cherry-pick can be told to use the sha1
> > > reference layout Greg prefers or not, he uses "This is <sha1> in
> > > upstream." between the commit header and the actual commit message. But
> > > ime his scripts reformat your commit messages anyway.
> > >
> > >> James: please test this as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Once this is tested and we conclude it's sufficient to get bdw going on
> > > 3.14 without hilarity I think we should do a quick review on intel-gfx to
> > > check that the impact outside of bdw is indeed minimal. Then once drm-next
> > > has landed with all the referenced commits we can submit it to Greg with a
> > > small cover letter why we want this and that plan B would be to kill bdw
> > > in 3.14.
> > 
> > This seems to be working well for me, with the one caveat that on boot
> > and once per resume I'm hitting the WARN(!i915_preliminary_hw_support,
> > "GEN8_CENTROID_PIXEL_OPT_DIS not be needed for production") code in
> > gen8_init_clock_gating - can that WARN be dropped via "drm/i915: Don't
> > use i915_preliminary_hw_support to mean pre-production" ?
> > 
> > Both with and without that patch added, the series is:
> > 
> > Tested-by: James Ausmus <james.ausmus at intel.com>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Daniel, the patch is added to my backports branch. I think given that
> that it removes a WARN which we know to be bogus, it's a good patch for
> stable. But it's your call.

Oh, that patch definitely should go to stable if we fix up bdw in 3.14 ;-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch