On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:51:39PM +0100, Christian K?nig
wrote:> Am 11.03.19 um 17:39 schrieb Hans de Goede:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 07-02-19 09:59, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > Almost all TTM-based drivers use the same values for the
mmap-able
> > > range of BO addresses. Each driver therefore duplicates the
> > > DRM_FILE_PAGE_OFFSET constant. OTOH, the mmap range's size is
not
> > > configurable by drivers.
> > >
> > > This patch set replaces driver-specific configuration with a
single
> > > setup. All code is located within TTM. TTM and GEM share the same
> > > range for mmap-able BOs.
> > >
> > > Thomas Zimmermann (5):
> > > ?? staging/vboxvideo: Use same BO mmap offset as other drivers
> > > ?? drm/ttm: Define a single DRM_FILE_PAGE_OFFSET constant
> > > ?? drm/ttm: Remove file_page_offset parameter from
ttm_bo_device_init()
> > > ?? drm/ttm: Quick-test mmap offset in ttm_bo_mmap()
> > > ?? drm: Use the same mmap-range offset and size for GEM and TTM
> >
> > Note I'm about to push a patch-series to drm-misc-next which moves
> > vboxvideo out of staging and I see that this series has not landed
> > in drm-misc-next yet, so it will needs to be rebased.
>
> Mhm, TTM is usually not pushed upstream through drm-misc-next, so that will
> certainly collide with the next TTM pull request.
>
> So can you wait with that or should I make an exception and merge this
> change though drm-misc-next?
Other options:
- Get amdgpu added to drm-tip and linux-next so we have a heads-up about
the conflict. That's usually good enough to avoid the broken merge
conflict.
- Do a topic branch, pull it into both trees.
- Really stuff ttm into a shared tree if it's meant to be shared
infrastructure :-P
Waiting+rebasing is imo the worst option, and usually not needed.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
