> Then I got to eba164ec7e69 "radeon/nouveau/ttm/AGP: Use dma_addr if TTM > has set it." which complained: > CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.o > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c: In function ‘ttm_agp_populate’: > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_agp_backend.c:66: error: ‘struct agp_memory’ > has no member named ‘dma_addr’ > and indeed the field is missing both in 2.6.32+drm33 and Linus' tree. Do > I need to cherry pick something from another series or is this commit
You can drop that patch. I've rebased the tree to: devel/ttm.pci-api-v2 which is exactly like the older except missing that patch. > something which should be ignored per our previous discussion about PCIe > vs AGP etc? (I'm going with the second option for now) Yup. > > I'll publish my backport in a git tree once I'm happy with it, I need to > tidy it up and correct the cherry-picked from comments etc and then > actually build something which uses it. I'll make Debian packages > available for wider testing once I've done that (with Xmas coming up I > don't know when that will actually be). > > Did the series make any waves upstream? What are the chances that it > will go upstream in something roughly like its current form? I hope so. I am putting the polishing touches on item c) to have it ready for upstream. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
