From: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
Commit 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
selftests") added some debug code for sideband message tracing. But
it seems to have unintentionally changed the behavior on sideband message
failure. It catches and returns failure only if DRM_UT_DP is enabled.
Otherwise it ignores the error code and returns success. So on an MST
unplug, the caller is unaware that the clear payload message failed and
ends up waiting for 4 seconds for the response. Fixes the issue by
returning the proper error code.
Changes in V2:
-- Revise commit text as review comment
-- add Fixes text
Changes in V3:
-- remove "unlikely" optimization
Fixes: 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing + selftests")
Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
index 1590144..df91110 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
@@ -2887,11 +2887,13 @@ static int process_single_tx_qlock(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
idx += tosend + 1;
ret = drm_dp_send_sideband_msg(mgr, up, chunk, idx);
- if (unlikely(ret) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
- struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
+ if (ret) {
+ if (drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
+ struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
- drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
- drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
+ drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
+ drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
+ }
return ret;
}
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
>
> Commit 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
> selftests") added some debug code for sideband message tracing. But
> it seems to have unintentionally changed the behavior on sideband message
> failure. It catches and returns failure only if DRM_UT_DP is enabled.
> Otherwise it ignores the error code and returns success. So on an MST
> unplug, the caller is unaware that the clear payload message failed and
> ends up waiting for 4 seconds for the response. Fixes the issue by
> returning the proper error code.
>
> Changes in V2:
> -- Revise commit text as review comment
> -- add Fixes text
>
> Changes in V3:
> -- remove "unlikely" optimization
>
> Fixes: 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing + selftests")
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> index 1590144..df91110 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> @@ -2887,11 +2887,13 @@ static int process_single_tx_qlock(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
> idx += tosend + 1;
>
> ret = drm_dp_send_sideband_msg(mgr, up, chunk, idx);
> - if (unlikely(ret) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
> - struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
> + if (ret) {
> + if (drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
> + struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
>
> - drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
> - drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
> + drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
> + drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
> + }
> return ret;
> }
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
On 2021-07-07 01:37, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
>>
>> Commit 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
>> selftests") added some debug code for sideband message tracing. But
>> it seems to have unintentionally changed the behavior on sideband
>> message
>> failure. It catches and returns failure only if DRM_UT_DP is enabled.
>> Otherwise it ignores the error code and returns success. So on an MST
>> unplug, the caller is unaware that the clear payload message failed
>> and
>> ends up waiting for 4 seconds for the response. Fixes the issue by
>> returning the proper error code.
>>
>> Changes in V2:
>> -- Revise commit text as review comment
>> -- add Fixes text
>>
>> Changes in V3:
>> -- remove "unlikely" optimization
>>
>> Fixes: 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
>> selftests")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
>
>
>> ---
Lyude,
Any comments from you?
Thanks,
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> index 1590144..df91110 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> @@ -2887,11 +2887,13 @@ static int process_single_tx_qlock(struct
>> drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
>> idx += tosend + 1;
>>
>> ret = drm_dp_send_sideband_msg(mgr, up, chunk, idx);
>> - if (unlikely(ret) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
>> - struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + if (drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
>> + struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
>>
>> - drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
>> - drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
>> + drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
>> + drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
>> + }
>> return ret;
>> }
On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 15:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2021-07-07 01:37, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > From: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Commit 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
> > > selftests") added some debug code for sideband message tracing. But
> > > it seems to have unintentionally changed the behavior on sideband
> > > message
> > > failure. It catches and returns failure only if DRM_UT_DP is enabled.
> > > Otherwise it ignores the error code and returns success. So on an MST
> > > unplug, the caller is unaware that the clear payload message failed
> > > and
> > > ends up waiting for 4 seconds for the response. Fixes the issue by
> > > returning the proper error code.
> > >
> > > Changes in V2:
> > > -- Revise commit text as review comment
> > > -- add Fixes text
> > >
> > > Changes in V3:
> > > -- remove "unlikely" optimization
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
> > > selftests")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > > ---
> Lyude,
> Any comments from you?
> Thanks,
Hey! Sorry did I forget to respond to this?
Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <[email protected]>
>
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 10 ++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > > index 1590144..df91110 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
> > > @@ -2887,11 +2887,13 @@ static int process_single_tx_qlock(struct
> > > drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
> > > idx += tosend + 1;
> > >
> > > ret = drm_dp_send_sideband_msg(mgr, up, chunk, idx);
> > > - if (unlikely(ret) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
> > > - struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + if (drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
> > > + struct drm_printer p =
> > > drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
> > >
> > > - drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
> > > - drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
> > > + drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
> > > + drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
> > > + }
> > > return ret;
> > > }
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
On 2021-07-22 10:53, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 15:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 2021-07-07 01:37, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2021, Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > From: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
>> > >
>> > > Commit 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
>> > > selftests") added some debug code for sideband message tracing. But
>> > > it seems to have unintentionally changed the behavior on sideband
>> > > message
>> > > failure. It catches and returns failure only if DRM_UT_DP is enabled.
>> > > Otherwise it ignores the error code and returns success. So on an MST
>> > > unplug, the caller is unaware that the clear payload message failed
>> > > and
>> > > ends up waiting for 4 seconds for the response. Fixes the issue by
>> > > returning the proper error code.
>> > >
>> > > Changes in V2:
>> > > -- Revise commit text as review comment
>> > > -- add Fixes text
>> > >
>> > > Changes in V3:
>> > > -- remove "unlikely" optimization
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: 2f015ec6eab6 ("drm/dp_mst: Add sideband down request tracing +
>> > > selftests")
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Rajkumar Subbiah <[email protected]>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Kuogee Hsieh <[email protected]>
>> > >
>> > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >
>> > > ---
>> Lyude,
>> Any comments from you?
>> Thanks,
>
> Hey! Sorry did I forget to respond to this?
>
> Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <[email protected]>
>
It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
Anything needed from me to do?
Thanks,
>>
>> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 10 ++++++----
>> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> > > index 1590144..df91110 100644
>> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c
>> > > @@ -2887,11 +2887,13 @@ static int process_single_tx_qlock(struct
>> > > drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr,
>> > > idx += tosend + 1;
>> > >
>> > > ret = drm_dp_send_sideband_msg(mgr, up, chunk, idx);
>> > > - if (unlikely(ret) && drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
>> > > - struct drm_printer p = drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
>> > > + if (ret) {
>> > > + if (drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DP)) {
>> > > + struct drm_printer p =
>> > > drm_debug_printer(DBG_PREFIX);
>> > >
>> > > - drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
>> > > - drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
>> > > + drm_printf(&p, "sideband msg failed to send\n");
>> > > + drm_dp_mst_dump_sideband_msg_tx(&p, txmsg);
>> > > + }
>> > > return ret;
>> > > }
>>
On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
> Anything needed from me to do?
> Thanks,
Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I can go
ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
>> Anything needed from me to do?
>> Thanks,
>
> Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I can
> go
> ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
Please push it for me.
Thanks a lots.
Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving work
for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll add Cc:
to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
[email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
> > > Anything needed from me to do?
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I can
> > go
> > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
> no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
> Please push it for me.
> Thanks a lots.
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
The patch was pushed yes (was part of drm-misc-next-2021-07-29), seems like it
just hasn't trickled down to linus's branch quite yet.
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 09:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 15:44, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving
> > work
> > for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
> >
> Hi Lyude,
>
> Had you pushed this patch yet?
> We still did not see this patch at msm-nex and v5.10 branch.
> Thanks,
>
>
> > BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll
> > add Cc:
> > to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
> > [email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
> > > > > Anything needed from me to do?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I
> > > > can
> > > > go
> > > > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
> > > no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
> > > Please push it for me.
> > > Thanks a lots.
> > >
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
On 2021-07-27 15:44, Lyude Paul wrote:
> Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving
> work
> for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
>
Hi Lyude,
Had you pushed this patch yet?
We still did not see this patch at msm-nex and v5.10 branch.
Thanks,
> BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll
> add Cc:
> to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
> [email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
>
> On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
>> > > Anything needed from me to do?
>> > > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I can
>> > go
>> > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
>> no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
>> Please push it for me.
>> Thanks a lots.
>>
On 2021-08-25 09:26, Lyude Paul wrote:
> The patch was pushed yes (was part of drm-misc-next-2021-07-29), seems
> like it
> just hasn't trickled down to linus's branch quite yet.
Hi Stephen B,
Would you mind back porting this patch to V5.10 branch?
It will have lots of helps for us to support display port MST case.
Thanks,
>
> On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 09:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 2021-07-27 15:44, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving
>> > work
>> > for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
>> >
>> Hi Lyude,
>>
>> Had you pushed this patch yet?
>> We still did not see this patch at msm-nex and v5.10 branch.
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> > BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll
>> > add Cc:
>> > to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
>> > [email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
>> > > > > Anything needed from me to do?
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > >
>> > > > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and I
>> > > > can
>> > > > go
>> > > > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
>> > > no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
>> > > Please push it for me.
>> > > Thanks a lots.
>> > >
>>
On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 08:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2021-08-25 09:26, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > The patch was pushed yes (was part of drm-misc-next-2021-07-29), seems
> > like it
> > just hasn't trickled down to linus's branch quite yet.
>
> Hi Stephen B,
>
> Would you mind back porting this patch to V5.10 branch?
> It will have lots of helps for us to support display port MST case.
> Thanks,
I'm assuming you're talking to someone else? A little confused because I don't
see a Stephen B in this thread
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 09:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > On 2021-07-27 15:44, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving
> > > > work
> > > > for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
> > > >
> > > Hi Lyude,
> > >
> > > Had you pushed this patch yet?
> > > We still did not see this patch at msm-nex and v5.10 branch.
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > > BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll
> > > > add Cc:
> > > > to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
> > > > [email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
> > > > > > > Anything needed from me to do?
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
> > > > > no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
> > > > > Please push it for me.
> > > > > Thanks a lots.
> > > > >
> > >
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
Quoting Lyude Paul (2021-08-30 09:58:01)
> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 08:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > On 2021-08-25 09:26, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > The patch was pushed yes (was part of drm-misc-next-2021-07-29), seems
> > > like it
> > > just hasn't trickled down to linus's branch quite yet.
> >
> > Hi Stephen B,
> >
> > Would you mind back porting this patch to V5.10 branch?
> > It will have lots of helps for us to support display port MST case.
> > Thanks,
If the patch is tagged for stable then it will automatically be
backported to the 5.10 stable release, or at least attempted. If you
don't see it in the stable tree but it's in Linus' tree then you can
submit the patch directly to stable. See
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst for more info.
>
> I'm assuming you're talking to someone else? A little confused because I don't
> see a Stephen B in this thread
I assume it is me.
On 2021-08-30 09:58, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 08:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 2021-08-25 09:26, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > The patch was pushed yes (was part of drm-misc-next-2021-07-29), seems
>> > like it
>> > just hasn't trickled down to linus's branch quite yet.
>>
>> Hi Stephen B,
>>
>> Would you mind back porting this patch to V5.10 branch?
>> It will have lots of helps for us to support display port MST case.
>> Thanks,
>
> I'm assuming you're talking to someone else? A little confused because
> I don't
> see a Stephen B in this thread
Yes,
I am asking Stephen B ([email protected]) helps to back port this
patch to v5.10.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 09:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > On 2021-07-27 15:44, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > > > Nice timing, you literally got me as I was 2 minutes away from leaving
>> > > > work
>> > > > for the day :P. I will go ahead and push it now.
>> > > >
>> > > Hi Lyude,
>> > >
>> > > Had you pushed this patch yet?
>> > > We still did not see this patch at msm-nex and v5.10 branch.
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > BTW - in the future I recommend using dim to add Fixes: tags as it'll
>> > > > add Cc:
>> > > > to stable as appropriate (this patch in particular should be Cc:
>> > > > [email protected] # v5.3+). will add these tags when I push it
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 15:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > On 2021-07-27 12:21, Lyude Paul wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It looks like this patch is good to go (mainlined).
>> > > > > > > Anything needed from me to do?
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Do you have access for pushing this patch? If not let me know and
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > can
>> > > > > > go
>> > > > > > ahead and push it to drm-misc-next for you.
>> > > > > no, I do not have access to drm-misc-next.
>> > > > > Please push it for me.
>> > > > > Thanks a lots.
>> > > > >
>> > >
>>