Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:00:56 -0300 | From | Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <> | Subject | Re: [ 32/37] drm/i915: correctly order the ring init sequence |
| |
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 03:54:44PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 12:04 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski [...] > > Good catch, I've forgotten to check whether all the recent ring_init > > patches have gone through cc: stable. For the stable team, please > > pick up both patches: > > > > f01db988ef6f6c70a6cc36ee71e4a98a68901229 and > > 0d8957c8a90bbb5d34fab9a304459448a5131e06 > > > > Note that all kernels that need f01db backported also need > > b7884eb45ec98c0d34c7f49005ae9d4b4b4e38f6 (to fix a regression > > introduce by the former). > > 3.2.y already had the second and third of these, but not f01db98 > 'drm/i915: Add wait_for in init_ring_common'. So I've added that. > > I don't have commit 18ef6f6c70a6cc36ee71e4a98a68901229 here, but I > assume it's a cherry-picked version as it has the same subject line.
Ops sorry, yes, it's the same commit, just the hash was the version I had picked in my local branch, I did git show in the wrong tree.
> > Ben. > > > Yeah, the ring init sequence is a fickle beast :( but I'm pretty sure > > with these three patches, stable kernels should be up to date and have > > all the latest fixes. > > > > Yours, Daniel > > -- > Ben Hutchings > I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
-- []'s Herton
| |