[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/tgl: Use TGL stepping info for applying WAs

Jani Nikula jani.nikula at linux.intel.com
Tue Jan 12 16:24:50 UTC 2021

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:57:43PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>So to clarify, it looks like we have a bunch of revid changes to the
>>display code that got merged to the gt-next tree but not to the
>>intel-next tree?  Should we be going back and also merging /
>>cherry-picking those over to intel-next since that's where the display
>>changes are supposed to go, or is it too late to do that cleanly at this
> it was my mistake to merge them to drm-intel-gt-next. They should have
> been in drm-intel-next.

That's not the problem though. The branches generally being too far
apart atm is. The single cherry-pick won't solve that. Applying these
patches to one tree just adds a dependency that will not be around in
the topic branch baseline, creating a new problem for merging the topic

>>Going forward, what should the general strategy be for stuff like
>>platform definitions and such?  Merge such enablement patches to both
> last time we talked about this was regarding dg1 AFAIR and the consensus
> was to create a topic branch and that topic branch to be merged in both
> branches. That would avoid having 2 commits in different branches.


> Not sure if it would work out nicely for getting test on CI though.
> Since the changes are spread through the codebase, we could very easily
> hit a situation that this topic branch creates conflicts for other
> patches getting merged on either drm-intel-next or drm-intel-gt-next.

The cycle in review -> apply to topic branch -> merge topic branch just
needs to be short enough. We can't have the topic branch laying around
for more than maybe a few days, or we'll have problems.


Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list