Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie wrote: >> > >> > I've done a trial merge into your tree from a few hours ago, there >> > are definitely some slighty messy conflicts, I've pushed a sample >> > branch here: >> >> I appreciate your sample merges since I like verifying my end result, >> but I think your merge is wrong. >> >> I got two differences when I did the merge. The one in >> intel_dp_detect() I think is just syntactic - I ended up placing the >> >> if (!intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) >> intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp); >> >> differently than you did (I did it *after* the tunnel_detect()). >> >> I don't _think,_ that placement matters, but somebody more familiar >> with the code should check it out. Added Animesh and Jani to the >> participants. >> >> But I think your merge gets the TP_printk() for the xe_bo_move trace >> event is actively wrong. You don't have the destination for the move >> in the printk. >> >> Or maybe I got it wrong. Our merges end up _close_, but not identical. > > You are right, I lost a line there, I've repushed mine just for > prosperity with that fixed. > > The other one I'm not sure on and will defer to the i915 maintainers > if ordering matters. I don't think the ordering matters, but Linus' solution matches what we have in our -next, and has been tested. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > I've done a trial merge into your tree from a few hours ago, there > > are definitely some slighty messy conflicts, I've pushed a sample > > branch here: > > I appreciate your sample merges since I like verifying my end result, > but I think your merge is wrong. > > I got two differences when I did the merge. The one in > intel_dp_detect() I think is just syntactic - I ended up placing the > > if (!intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) > intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp); > > differently than you did (I did it *after* the tunnel_detect()). > > I don't _think,_ that placement matters, but somebody more familiar > with the code should check it out. Added Animesh and Jani to the > participants. > > But I think your merge gets the TP_printk() for the xe_bo_move trace > event is actively wrong. You don't have the destination for the move > in the printk. > > Or maybe I got it wrong. Our merges end up _close_, but not identical. You are right, I lost a line there, I've repushed mine just for prosperity with that fixed. The other one I'm not sure on and will defer to the i915 maintainers if ordering matters. Dave.
Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1
The pull request you sent on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:06:52 +1000: > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/kernel.git tags/drm-next-2024-03-13 has been merged into torvalds/linux.git: https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/480e035fc4c714fb5536e64ab9db04fedc89e910 Thank you! -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/prtracker.html
Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie wrote: > > I've done a trial merge into your tree from a few hours ago, there > are definitely some slighty messy conflicts, I've pushed a sample > branch here: I appreciate your sample merges since I like verifying my end result, but I think your merge is wrong. I got two differences when I did the merge. The one in intel_dp_detect() I think is just syntactic - I ended up placing the if (!intel_dp_is_edp(intel_dp)) intel_psr_init_dpcd(intel_dp); differently than you did (I did it *after* the tunnel_detect()). I don't _think,_ that placement matters, but somebody more familiar with the code should check it out. Added Animesh and Jani to the participants. But I think your merge gets the TP_printk() for the xe_bo_move trace event is actively wrong. You don't have the destination for the move in the printk. Or maybe I got it wrong. Our merges end up _close_, but not identical. Linus
