Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-102976-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Animesh Manna <animesh.manna@intel.com>, Daniel Vetter
 <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.9-rc1
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9twwZ-u7_8sRRRf5kRnuRa44ixzM8dHZUs6f5wLnQi90Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <CAPM=9twR+WnE3GGqyeh1cuGVmpADPTwDPK10625RP--rLrqkxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiTWLKkg0Hht4ofDTVsebD2Zq-m4UP-DsiZjM+w4b7qug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPM=9twwZ-u7_8sRRRf5kRnuRa44ixzM8dHZUs6f5wLnQi90Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:34:10 +0200
Message-ID: <87zfv1qkjh.fsf@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> 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