Re: [PULL] drm-misc-next

From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "DRM maintainer tools announcements, discussion,
	and development" <dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
	"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Christian König" <easy2remember.chk@googlemail.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL] drm-misc-next
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:37:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20763bfe-34ce-68aa-23d5-450e6ce3d24e@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181107204812.GC154160@art_vandelay>

Op 07-11-18 om 21:48 schreef Sean Paul:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:31:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:29 PM Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:18:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 12:58:56PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>>> Hey Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> First pull for drm-next this cycle. There's been a lot of changes, so I
>>>>> hope I recorded everything from the changelog correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> drm-misc-next-2018-11-07:
>>>>> drm-misc-next for v4.21, part 1:
>>>>>
>>>>> UAPI Changes:
>>>>> - Add syncobj timeline support to drm.
>>>> With all the CI breakage this caused I kinda missed that it didn't get
>>>> reverted. But afaict this didn't have the ack from anv/radv folks (which I
>>>> explicitly asked for as part of what I think should be the merge
>>>> criteria), and I'm not sure where the userspace is, and this here isn't
>>>> just prep, but already adds new uapi.
>>>>
>>> +Christian
>>>
>>> Can you please land the revert while we get this sorted out?
>> The revert was for the CI breakage, which is sorted out differently
>> already. That was kinda just my excuse for not being in the loop. For
>> just the uapi disallowing timeline obj creation and moving the #define
>> away from the uapi include is all that's really needed.
> Yeah, the uapi #define looked simple enough to back out. Whatever unblocks us
> from moving forward is good with me.
>
> That said, reading through the review thread, this doesn't seem like something
> that should have been applied in the first place.
I didn't follow the syncobj breakage much, but yeah would be good to have it fixed first.

I'll send a new pull req when the revert is applied. :)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx