Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI 1/2] drm/i915/skl: Rework MOCS tables to keep common part in a define
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:35:25PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 23:19:18) > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 21:33:03) > > > > From: Tomasz Lis > > > > > > > > The MOCS tables are going to be very similar across platforms. > > > > > > > > To reduce the amount of copied code, this patch rips the common part and > > > > puts it into a definition valid for all gen9 platforms. > > > > > > > > v2: Made defines for or-ing flags. Renamed macros from MOCS_TABLE > > > > to MOCS_ENTRIES. (Joonas) > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Lis > > > > Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi > > > > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi (v1) > > > > > > Lucas, this needs your s-o-b if you are sending it for inclusion (to > > > state that you do have the legal authority to do so). > > > > Did I misunderstand the meaning of the CI tag? These are exactly the > > same commits as https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51258/ > > I'm only sending again to get them to run properly on CI since patchwork > > got confused with the in-reply-to used there. > > > > And I'm not going to apply these myself, so adding the s-o-b didn't seem > > appropriate. > > If you ask someone else to apply this series as is, it has passed > through your hands and you need to affirm that you do have authority to > be supplying these patches. > > I may have misunderstood your intent (if the commits remained the same > as before, you could have just requeued the earlier series for testing) > as I thought your intent here was to get CI results before applying > these patches (be that yourself or by proxy). My intent was to requeue the patch in the way I know it works, and that I thought was the normal way to do... patchwork got upset with the email headers there and no amount of clicks on "retest" would work since it doesn't know how to apply the patches. Lucas De Marchi ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI 1/2] drm/i915/skl: Rework MOCS tables to keep common part in a define
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-11-30 23:35:25) > I may have misunderstood your intent (if the commits remained the same > as before, you could have just requeued the earlier series for testing) > as I thought your intent here was to get CI results before applying > these patches (be that yourself or by proxy). Or perhaps even more appropriate would have been to use intel-gfx-trybot@ if this was just for private retesting. -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI 1/2] drm/i915/skl: Rework MOCS tables to keep common part in a define
Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 23:19:18) > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 21:33:03) > > > From: Tomasz Lis > > > > > > The MOCS tables are going to be very similar across platforms. > > > > > > To reduce the amount of copied code, this patch rips the common part and > > > puts it into a definition valid for all gen9 platforms. > > > > > > v2: Made defines for or-ing flags. Renamed macros from MOCS_TABLE > > > to MOCS_ENTRIES. (Joonas) > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Lis > > > Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi > > > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi (v1) > > > > Lucas, this needs your s-o-b if you are sending it for inclusion (to > > state that you do have the legal authority to do so). > > Did I misunderstand the meaning of the CI tag? These are exactly the > same commits as https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51258/ > I'm only sending again to get them to run properly on CI since patchwork > got confused with the in-reply-to used there. > > And I'm not going to apply these myself, so adding the s-o-b didn't seem > appropriate. If you ask someone else to apply this series as is, it has passed through your hands and you need to affirm that you do have authority to be supplying these patches. I may have misunderstood your intent (if the commits remained the same as before, you could have just requeued the earlier series for testing) as I thought your intent here was to get CI results before applying these patches (be that yourself or by proxy). -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI 1/2] drm/i915/skl: Rework MOCS tables to keep common part in a define
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 21:33:03) > > From: Tomasz Lis > > > > The MOCS tables are going to be very similar across platforms. > > > > To reduce the amount of copied code, this patch rips the common part and > > puts it into a definition valid for all gen9 platforms. > > > > v2: Made defines for or-ing flags. Renamed macros from MOCS_TABLE > > to MOCS_ENTRIES. (Joonas) > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Lis > > Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi > > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi (v1) > > Lucas, this needs your s-o-b if you are sending it for inclusion (to > state that you do have the legal authority to do so). Did I misunderstand the meaning of the CI tag? These are exactly the same commits as https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51258/ I'm only sending again to get them to run properly on CI since patchwork got confused with the in-reply-to used there. And I'm not going to apply these myself, so adding the s-o-b didn't seem appropriate. Lucas De Marchi > -Chris > ___ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI 1/2] drm/i915/skl: Rework MOCS tables to keep common part in a define
Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-11-30 21:33:03) > From: Tomasz Lis > > The MOCS tables are going to be very similar across platforms. > > To reduce the amount of copied code, this patch rips the common part and > puts it into a definition valid for all gen9 platforms. > > v2: Made defines for or-ing flags. Renamed macros from MOCS_TABLE > to MOCS_ENTRIES. (Joonas) > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Lis > Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi (v1) Lucas, this needs your s-o-b if you are sending it for inclusion (to state that you do have the legal authority to do so). -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
