Message-ID: <d8f49ae2-cbe2-2c78-b804-e831a9d0651e@vodafone.de>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:09:01 +0200
From:   Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        "Zhou, Jammy" <Jammy.Zhou@....com>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@....com>,
        "Huang, JinHuiEric" <JinHuiEric.Huang@....com>,
        "Cui, Flora" <Flora.Cui@....com>,
        "StDenis, Tom" <Tom.StDenis@....com>,
        Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
        "tang.qiang007@....com.cn" <tang.qiang007@....com.cn>,
        "Prosyak, Vitaly" <Vitaly.Prosyak@....com>,
        "Min, Frank" <Frank.Min@....com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        "xie.baoyou@....com.cn" <xie.baoyou@....com.cn>,
        "han.fei@....com.cn" <han.fei@....com.cn>,
        "Liu, Monk" <Monk.Liu@....com>,
        Nils Wallménius <nils.wallmenius@...il.com>,
        "Yang, Eric" <Eric.Yang2@....com>, "Zhu, Rex" <Rex.Zhu@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Yang, Young" <Young.Yang@....com>, "Wang, Ken" <Ken.Wang@....com>,
        Edward O'Callaghan <funfunctor@...klore1984.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: mark symbols static where possible

Am 25.10.2016 um 08:41 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:07:16 PM CEST Deucher, Alexander wrote:
>>>>>> In fact, these functions are only used in the file in which they are
>>>>>> declared and don't need a declaration, but can be made static.
>>>>>> So this patch marks these functions with 'static'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>
>>>>> This was already applied the last time you sent it out.  Sorry if I
>>>>> didn't mention that previously.
>>>> For some reason the patch hasn't made it into linux-next, so I can see
>>>> why Baoyou was getting confused here. Can you clarify what the timeline
>>>> is for the AMD DRM driver patches from between they get applied to the
>>>> AMD tree to when they make it into linux-next?
>>>>
>>> It came in late enough last cycle that it didn't make it into 4.9 (this is just a clean up not a critical bug fix), so I queued it for 4.10.  I try to reply when I apply a patch, but sometimes I miss one here and there.  Once Dave starts the drm-next tree for 4.10, it will be included in my pull request.  Pending -next patches are in my drm-next-<kernel version>-wip tree until I send Dave a formal request.
>>>
>>>> I've occasionally had a hard time with DRM (and a few other subsystems)
>>>> with bugfix patches trying to find out whether they got lost or
>>>> whether they just haven't made it into -next but are in some other tree.
>>>>
>>> For bug fixes we usually send Dave ~weekly pull requests for each -rc as necessary.  For -next stuff, each driver usually sends at least one, sometimes several pull requests for the next merge window.
>> Ok, got it. Thanks for the detailed reply!
>>
>> Do you think it would be appropriate to include your drm-next-wip tree in
>> linux-next? I think this is how a lot of the multi-level maintainer
>> setups work as it give faster feedback about when things break.
> tbh I think all drm drivers should be in linux-next. The early head-ups
> about conflicts are really useful. Same for nouveau, but given that
> nouveau is developed in a userspace git repo that's harder to pull off.

Mhm, in general I agree that seeing merge conflicts and getting a bit 
more testing earlier would be a good idea.

But Alex has the practice of regenerating his -wip branches multiple 
times. That is usually not a problem because the only one occasionally 
basing work on that branch is me, but it would be if you start to merge 
it somewhere.

Christian.

> -Daniel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists