[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] A few fixes on top of the wa_regs patches

[Siluvery, Arun]

On 01/09/2014 10:08, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 08:32:55PM +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote:
>> On 30/08/2014 16:50, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>> Hi Arun,
>>>
>>> I've compiled a few patches that I think solve some small-ish issues around
>>> your wa_regs series. Could you please have a look at them and comment/give your
>>> r-b tag if you judge appropriate?
>>>
>>> On top of those patches, I'd love some comments on the issues I raised in the
>>> other mail and possible follow up patches to address them.
>>>
>>>    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-August/051514.html
>>
>> Hi Damien,
>>
>> I really appreciate you taking time to not just give review comments but
>> also sending patches to fix those issues.
>>
>> Chris suggested a way of emitting all LRIs using a simple function and I
>> really wanted to rework everything based on that suggestion.
>>
>> The LRIs are now organized in an array as opposed to sending them
>> individually also debugfs patch can make use of it. I have removed the
>> temporary array included in driver private structure.
>> I think now it looks clean and we can easily add new w/a with minimal
>> changes.
>>
>> Since all of the patches are modified I think it is better to squash them
>> with the merged ones rather than updating them with new patches so I have
>> folded your patches during rework and will send them after testing, please
>> review them and give your comments.
>
> Please don't squash fixup patches when I've merged your patch already -
> usually I only drop patches when they're terminally broken, so if you send
> me a new version I have to fiddle things to make it all apply. But
> squashing in a fixup patch is simpler. And imo also easier to review.

In this case all of the code is newly added so most of it should apply 
cleanly but if the preference is to not squash them I can send fix-up 
patches accordingly.

regards
Arun

>
> And once we deal in fixup patches it's ok to have a bunch of them imo,
> too.
> -Daniel
>