[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/display: remove drm_device aliases

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Jani,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:17:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:48:44PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >>> > drm_device pointers are unwelcome.
> >>> > 
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda at intel.com>
> >>> 
> >>> Acked-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> Only this first patch is strictly related to display, I'm taking
> >> the series in intel-gt-next. Anyone against?
> >
> > Absolutely against. That logic is backwards.
> >
> > drm-intel-gt-next is for stuff that's strictly about gt/gem. Everything
> > else, especially stuff touching common code, needs to go through
> > drm-intel-next.
> >
> > There's nothing here that's gt/gem specific.
> 
> To elaborate on this, we can do drm-intel-next -> drm-intel-gt-next
> cross-merges. Not vice versa.
> 
> If you merge code to drm-intel-gt-next that other work in drm-intel-next
> depends on, we'll need a drm-intel-gt-next pull request to drm-next and
> a backmerge from drm-next to drm-intel-next. And that creates a
> dependency outside of drm-intel.git, as well as potentially several
> weeks' delay when drm-next is not open for pull requests.

Thanks for the explanation... I'm still learning here :)

Will push in drm-intel-next, then.

Thanks,
Andi