diff mbox

NAK: [Precise][SRU] drm/i915: Remove too early plane enable on pre-PCH hardware

Message ID 507DCBE4.70303@canonical.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Chris J Arges Oct. 16, 2012, 9:04 p.m. UTC 
On 10/16/2012 12:31 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> This is not a clean cherry-pick on master-next. Please have another look.
> 
Hi Tim,
So one thing I noticed is that this particular commit is a single line
removed:


However when I use 'git cherry-pick
c7bd4c25650704d4d065eb4ce2a122d2a80ce804', it tries to pull in a bunch
of seemingly unrelated code.

I also was able to apply this patch cleanly to master-next.

However, at this point do I need to re-format the patch such that I
indicate I've edited the cherry-pick? or is there another format that
needs to be used?

The big difference between the upstream patch and the backport is the
line numbers since the function moved.

Thanks,
--chris j arges

Comments

Seth Forshee Oct. 16, 2012, 9:24 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:04:36PM -0500, Chris J Arges wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 12:31 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > This is not a clean cherry-pick on master-next. Please have another look.
> > 
> Hi Tim,
> So one thing I noticed is that this particular commit is a single line
> removed:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index c5f071d..cf9dfcd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -3932,7 +3932,6 @@ static int i9xx_crtc_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> 
>         I915_WRITE(DSPCNTR(plane), dspcntr);
>         POSTING_READ(DSPCNTR(plane));
> -       intel_enable_plane(dev_priv, plane, pipe);
> 
>         ret = intel_pipe_set_base(crtc, x, y, old_fb);
> 
> 
> However when I use 'git cherry-pick
> c7bd4c25650704d4d065eb4ce2a122d2a80ce804', it tries to pull in a bunch
> of seemingly unrelated code.

I tried doing the cherry pick, and I think git is just plain screwing up
the merge. For me it's not pulling in unrelated code, it's just trying
to apply the change to a completely different function. Unsurprisingly
git is finding conflicts because it's trying to patch the wrong code.

Chris's cherry pick (or backport or whatever you want to call it)
matches the upstream commit, so I think it is correct.
Tim Gardner Oct. 16, 2012, 11:06 p.m. UTC | #2 
Indeed git was doing something weird. I extracted the patch using 'git 
format-patch' which I was able to apply just fine. Sorry for the noise.

rtg
Chris J Arges Oct. 16, 2012, 11:56 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 10/16/2012 06:06 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Indeed git was doing something weird. I extracted the patch using 'git
> format-patch' which I was able to apply just fine. Sorry for the noise.
> 
> rtg

No problem. Better safe than sorry.
Thanks,
--chris
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index c5f071d..cf9dfcd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -3932,7 +3932,6 @@  static int i9xx_crtc_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,

        I915_WRITE(DSPCNTR(plane), dspcntr);
        POSTING_READ(DSPCNTR(plane));
-       intel_enable_plane(dev_priv, plane, pipe);

        ret = intel_pipe_set_base(crtc, x, y, old_fb);