[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 <>
>>>>> 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.


> -Daniel

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-25 09:10    [W:0.057 / U:3.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site