[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/2] Use i915 instead of dev_priv

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Jani,

> >> just another "Friday patch". While reviewing some patches from
> >> Tejas I found a bit confusing the use of dev_priv__ inside the
> >> for_each_engine(), perhaps it should be moved inside the gt/?
> >> 
> >> As I was at it I made the /dev_priv/i915/ change which is still
> >> harmless. Next in queue is to change the i915_irq.h, which is a
> >> bit tricky (but not much) as the "dev_priv" is hardcoded inside
> >> some defines.
> >> 
> >> Andi
> >> 
> >> Andi Shyti (2):
> >>   drm/i915/i915_drv: Use proper parameter naming in for_each_gt()
> >>   drm/i915/i915_drv: Use i915 instead of dev_priv insied the file_priv
> >>     structure
> >> 
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 462 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 231 insertions(+), 231 deletions(-)
> >
> > Pushed to dmr-intel-gt-next.
> 
> That's going to create problems for us for weeks to come. I'm actually
> tempted to ask Joonas or Tvrtko to just force push that out of there.
> 
> Only use drm-intel-gt-next for stuff that's specifically about gt or
> gem, and touches files used by gt or gem only. For everything else, use
> drm-intel-next. When in doubt, err on the side of drm-intel-next.

sorry, I did think of it. But...

> It's not enough that one of the patches changes parameters of
> for_each_gt() macro.

... I was fooled by the gt/i915 parameter.

Thanks and sorry,
Andi

> We can cross-merge drm-intel-next to drm-intel-gt-next, but we can't
> cross-merge drm-intel-gt-next to drm-intel-next. This means the only way
> to sync those i915_drv.h changes to drm-intel-next is to have a
> drm-intel-gt-next pull request merged to drm-next, and then backmerged
> to drm-intel-next. That's not going to happen for several weeks.
> 
> Any change aimed at drm-intel-next that conflicts with the i915_drv.h
> changes will now be pending on those merges.