All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:27:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191213082734.GE3468@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d07445d-98b1-f23c-0aac-07709b45df78@redhat.com>

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12-12-2019 16:52, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 12-12-2019 09:45, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Lee,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 10-12-2019 09:51, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At least Bay Trail (BYT) and Cherry Trail (CHT) devices can use 1 of 2
> > > > > > > different PWM controllers for controlling the LCD's backlight brightness.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Either the one integrated into the PMIC or the one integrated into the
> > > > > > > SoC (the 1st LPSS PWM controller).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far in the LPSS code on BYT we have skipped registering the LPSS PWM
> > > > > > > controller "pwm_backlight" lookup entry when a Crystal Cove PMIC is
> > > > > > > present, assuming that in this case the PMIC PWM controller will be used.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On CHT we have been relying on only 1 of the 2 PWM controllers being
> > > > > > > enabled in the DSDT at the same time; and always registered the lookup.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far this has been working, but the correct way to determine which PWM
> > > > > > > controller needs to be used is by checking a bit in the VBT table and
> > > > > > > recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> > > > > > > Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> > > > > > > Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> > > > > > > PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> > > > > > > heuristics fail.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit renames
> > > > > > > the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
> > > > > > > controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do a
> > > > > > > pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit, instead of
> > > > > > > the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting registered
> > > > > > > which magically points to the right controller.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > >      Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
> > > > > as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this series
> > > > > in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
> > > > > Is that ok with you ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will just push
> > > > > the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> > > > > does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any conflicts.
> > > > 
> > > > It's fine, so long as a minimal immutable pull-request is provided.
> > > > Whether it's pulled or not will depend on a number of factors, but it
> > > > needs to be an option.
> > > 
> > > The way the drm subsys works that is not really a readily available
> > > option. The struct definition which this patch changes a single line in
> > > has not been touched since 2015-06-26 so I really doubt we will get a
> > > conflict from this.
> > 
> > Always with the exceptions ...
> > 
> > OOI, why does this *have* to go through the DRM tree?
> 
> This patch renames the name used to lookup the pwm controller from
> "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_pmic_backlight" because there are 2 possible
> pwm controllers which may be used, one in the SoC itself and one
> in the PMIC. Which controller should be used is described in a table
> in the Video BIOS, so another part of this series adds this code to
> the i915 driver:
> 
> -	panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_backlight");
> +	/* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
> +	if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_pmic_backlight");
> +		desc = "PMIC";
> +	} else {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_soc_backlight");
> +		desc = "SoC";
> +	}
> 
> So both not to break bisectability, but also so as to not break the extensive
> CI system which is used to test the i915 driver we need the MFD change doing
> the rename to go upstrream through the same tree as the i915 change.
> 
> I have even considered just squashing the 2 commits together as having only 1
> present, but not the other breaks stuff left and right.

That doesn't answer the question.

Why do they all *have* to go in via the DRM tree specifically?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:27:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191213082734.GE3468@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d07445d-98b1-f23c-0aac-07709b45df78@redhat.com>

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12-12-2019 16:52, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 12-12-2019 09:45, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Lee,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 10-12-2019 09:51, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At least Bay Trail (BYT) and Cherry Trail (CHT) devices can use 1 of 2
> > > > > > > different PWM controllers for controlling the LCD's backlight brightness.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Either the one integrated into the PMIC or the one integrated into the
> > > > > > > SoC (the 1st LPSS PWM controller).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far in the LPSS code on BYT we have skipped registering the LPSS PWM
> > > > > > > controller "pwm_backlight" lookup entry when a Crystal Cove PMIC is
> > > > > > > present, assuming that in this case the PMIC PWM controller will be used.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On CHT we have been relying on only 1 of the 2 PWM controllers being
> > > > > > > enabled in the DSDT at the same time; and always registered the lookup.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far this has been working, but the correct way to determine which PWM
> > > > > > > controller needs to be used is by checking a bit in the VBT table and
> > > > > > > recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> > > > > > > Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> > > > > > > Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> > > > > > > PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> > > > > > > heuristics fail.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit renames
> > > > > > > the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
> > > > > > > controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do a
> > > > > > > pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit, instead of
> > > > > > > the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting registered
> > > > > > > which magically points to the right controller.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > >      Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
> > > > > as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this series
> > > > > in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
> > > > > Is that ok with you ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will just push
> > > > > the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> > > > > does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any conflicts.
> > > > 
> > > > It's fine, so long as a minimal immutable pull-request is provided.
> > > > Whether it's pulled or not will depend on a number of factors, but it
> > > > needs to be an option.
> > > 
> > > The way the drm subsys works that is not really a readily available
> > > option. The struct definition which this patch changes a single line in
> > > has not been touched since 2015-06-26 so I really doubt we will get a
> > > conflict from this.
> > 
> > Always with the exceptions ...
> > 
> > OOI, why does this *have* to go through the DRM tree?
> 
> This patch renames the name used to lookup the pwm controller from
> "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_pmic_backlight" because there are 2 possible
> pwm controllers which may be used, one in the SoC itself and one
> in the PMIC. Which controller should be used is described in a table
> in the Video BIOS, so another part of this series adds this code to
> the i915 driver:
> 
> -	panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_backlight");
> +	/* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
> +	if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_pmic_backlight");
> +		desc = "PMIC";
> +	} else {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_soc_backlight");
> +		desc = "SoC";
> +	}
> 
> So both not to break bisectability, but also so as to not break the extensive
> CI system which is used to test the i915 driver we need the MFD change doing
> the rename to go upstrream through the same tree as the i915 change.
> 
> I have even considered just squashing the 2 commits together as having only 1
> present, but not the other breaks stuff left and right.

That doesn't answer the question.

Why do they all *have* to go in via the DRM tree specifically?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:27:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191213082734.GE3468@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d07445d-98b1-f23c-0aac-07709b45df78@redhat.com>

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12-12-2019 16:52, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 12-12-2019 09:45, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Lee,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 10-12-2019 09:51, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At least Bay Trail (BYT) and Cherry Trail (CHT) devices can use 1 of 2
> > > > > > > different PWM controllers for controlling the LCD's backlight brightness.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Either the one integrated into the PMIC or the one integrated into the
> > > > > > > SoC (the 1st LPSS PWM controller).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far in the LPSS code on BYT we have skipped registering the LPSS PWM
> > > > > > > controller "pwm_backlight" lookup entry when a Crystal Cove PMIC is
> > > > > > > present, assuming that in this case the PMIC PWM controller will be used.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On CHT we have been relying on only 1 of the 2 PWM controllers being
> > > > > > > enabled in the DSDT at the same time; and always registered the lookup.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So far this has been working, but the correct way to determine which PWM
> > > > > > > controller needs to be used is by checking a bit in the VBT table and
> > > > > > > recently I've learned about 2 different BYT devices:
> > > > > > > Point of View MOBII TAB-P800W
> > > > > > > Acer Switch 10 SW5-012
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Which use a Crystal Cove PMIC, yet the LCD is connected to the SoC/LPSS
> > > > > > > PWM controller (and the VBT correctly indicates this), so here our old
> > > > > > > heuristics fail.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since only the i915 driver has access to the VBT, this commit renames
> > > > > > > the "pwm_backlight" lookup entries for the Crystal Cove PMIC's PWM
> > > > > > > controller to "pwm_pmic_backlight" so that the i915 driver can do a
> > > > > > > pwm_get() for the right controller depending on the VBT bit, instead of
> > > > > > > the i915 driver relying on a "pwm_backlight" lookup getting registered
> > > > > > > which magically points to the right controller.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For my own reference:
> > > > > >      Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > As mentioned in the cover-letter, to avoid breaking bi-sectability
> > > > > as well as to avoid breaking the intel-gfx CI we need to merge this series
> > > > > in one go through one tree. Specifically through the drm-intel tree.
> > > > > Is that ok with you ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If this is ok with you, then you do not have to do anything, I will just push
> > > > > the entire series to drm-intel. drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
> > > > > does not see much changes so I do not expect this to lead to any conflicts.
> > > > 
> > > > It's fine, so long as a minimal immutable pull-request is provided.
> > > > Whether it's pulled or not will depend on a number of factors, but it
> > > > needs to be an option.
> > > 
> > > The way the drm subsys works that is not really a readily available
> > > option. The struct definition which this patch changes a single line in
> > > has not been touched since 2015-06-26 so I really doubt we will get a
> > > conflict from this.
> > 
> > Always with the exceptions ...
> > 
> > OOI, why does this *have* to go through the DRM tree?
> 
> This patch renames the name used to lookup the pwm controller from
> "pwm_backlight" to "pwm_pmic_backlight" because there are 2 possible
> pwm controllers which may be used, one in the SoC itself and one
> in the PMIC. Which controller should be used is described in a table
> in the Video BIOS, so another part of this series adds this code to
> the i915 driver:
> 
> -	panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_backlight");
> +	/* Get the right PWM chip for DSI backlight according to VBT */
> +	if (dev_priv->vbt.dsi.config->pwm_blc == PPS_BLC_PMIC) {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_pmic_backlight");
> +		desc = "PMIC";
> +	} else {
> +		panel->backlight.pwm = pwm_get(dev->dev, "pwm_soc_backlight");
> +		desc = "SoC";
> +	}
> 
> So both not to break bisectability, but also so as to not break the extensive
> CI system which is used to test the i915 driver we need the MFD change doing
> the rename to go upstrream through the same tree as the i915 change.
> 
> I have even considered just squashing the 2 commits together as having only 1
> present, but not the other breaks stuff left and right.

That doesn't answer the question.

Why do they all *have* to go in via the DRM tree specifically?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2019-12-13  8:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-19 15:18 [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] ACPI / LPSS: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_soc_backlight Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-29 11:59   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-29 11:59     ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-29 11:59     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Rename pwm_backlight pwm-lookup to pwm_pmic_backlight Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-10  8:51   ` Lee Jones
2019-12-10  8:51     ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-10  8:51     ` Lee Jones
2019-12-11 17:29     ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-11 17:29       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-11 17:29       ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12  8:45       ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12  8:45         ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-12  8:45         ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 14:34         ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 14:34           ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 14:34           ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 15:52           ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 15:52             ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-12 15:52             ` Lee Jones
2019-12-12 19:02             ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 19:02               ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-12 19:02               ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-13  8:27               ` Lee Jones [this message]
2019-12-13  8:27                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-13  8:27                 ` Lee Jones
2019-12-13 12:40                 ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-13 12:40                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-13 12:40                   ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-16  9:30                   ` Lee Jones
2019-12-16  9:30                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-16  9:30                     ` Lee Jones
2019-12-16 10:04                     ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-16 10:04                       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-12-16 10:04                       ` Hans de Goede
2019-12-17  8:11                       ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17  8:11                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-17  8:11                         ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:25                         ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:25                           ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:25                           ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-17 13:51                           ` Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:51                             ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-17 13:51                             ` Lee Jones
2019-12-18  7:14                             ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  7:14                               ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  7:14                               ` Jani Nikula
2019-12-18  9:38                               ` Lee Jones
2019-12-18  9:38                                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Lee Jones
2019-12-18  9:38                                 ` Lee Jones
2019-11-19 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: DSI: select correct PWM controller to use based on the VBT Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:18   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:47   ` Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 15:47     ` [Intel-gfx] " Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 15:47     ` Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-19 16:48     ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 16:48       ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 16:48       ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 15:43 ` [PATCH 0/3] drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 15:43   ` Jani Nikula
2019-11-19 16:32 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 16:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 16:32   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 16:32   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-11-19 19:10 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:10   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:33 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2019-11-19 19:33   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-19 21:11   ` Hans de Goede
2019-11-19 21:11     ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2019-11-20 13:00 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915 / LPSS / mfd: Select correct PWM controller to use based on VBT (rev2) Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:00   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:48 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2019-11-20 13:48   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-21  4:17 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2019-11-21  4:17   ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191213082734.GE3468@dell \
    --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.