Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/11] drm/i915/adl_p: Add support for Display Page Tables

From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/11] drm/i915/adl_p: Add support for Display Page Tables
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:21:55 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210421192155.GA3591893@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r1j396pr.fsf@intel.com>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:12:48PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:03:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> Alder Lake-P adds a new Display Page Table hardware structure, mapping
> >> >> tiled framebuffer pages to the display engine, reducing the address
> >> >> space required in GGTT for these framebuffers.
> >> >>
> >> >> This patchset adds support for this taking a minimum set of dependency
> >> >> patches from the ADL_P enabling patchset at
> >> >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/87897/
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Daniel
> >> >
> >> > I guess we'll need a topic branch for the base enabling to merge to both
> >> > din and dign? I guess it'll need to include the stuff in
> >> > topic/intel-gen-to-ver too.
> >> >
> >> > Shared stuff like this keeps being a problem with the separate dign
> >> > branch, especially when the only way to sync is to merge both din and
> >> > dign to drm-next and then backmerge to both.
> >> 
> >> I've created the topic branch.
> >> 
> >> When this series starts getting ready to merge, please use the
> >> topic/adl-p-enabling branch, so we can merge it to both drm-intel-next
> >> and drm-intel-gt-next.
> >
> > Ok, thanks, I would need a review for 4 (trivial) patches in the
> > patchset. Could you explain the reason for a separate branch?
> 
> drm-intel-next and drm-intel-gt-next only get synced via merges to
> drm-next, and backmerges back to each branch. If adl-p basic enabling
> patches (PCI IDs, device info, etc.) only get merged to drm-intel-next,
> any gt enabling in drm-intel-gt-next will be pending on the merge +
> backmerge, which will be some time after the next merge window. At least
> three weeks away. Additionally accumulating merge conflicts.
> 
> With the topic branch, we can merge the basics to both right away, and
> continue with details in each branch separately.

Makes sense, thanks for explaining.

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx