On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> oh, now I understand. You mean that xe module doesn't have the param
> because it's only declared in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c.
>
> Could you extend the commit message with something like this?
>
> The dmc_firmware_path parameter is
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:06:20AM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:48:43AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:20:57PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
The
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:48:43AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:20:57PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
The dmc_firmware_path parameter is clearly a display parameter. Move it
there. This
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:20:57PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> The dmc_firmware_path parameter is clearly a display parameter. Move it
>>> there. This also cleans up the ugly member in struct xe_device.
>>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:20:57PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
The dmc_firmware_path parameter is clearly a display parameter. Move it
there. This also cleans up the ugly member in struct xe_device.
Hmm, does this actually fix the parameter on xe?!
not
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The dmc_firmware_path parameter is clearly a display parameter. Move it
> there. This also cleans up the ugly member in struct xe_device.
Hmm, does this actually fix the parameter on xe?!
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula
> ---
>
