Re: [git pull] drm merge for 3.9-rc1

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Feb 25 2013 - 20:23:09 EST

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So up front, this has a massive merge conflict in
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/evergreen_cs.c I've fixed it up in drm-next-merged
> in the same tree, I fixed up some small ordering issues in my merge as
> well, however they aren't important if you want the fun of doing a major
> conflict resolution.

I did the fun conflict resolution, so my tree doesn't have the ordering changes.

I also did some things slightly differently from you - you had left
some direct ib[] accesses that I spotted (see for example "case 0x48"
(aka "Copy L2T Frame to Field"), and yours apparently has a few cases
where you use "idx_value" instead of my mindless conflict resolution
that just re-did the brute-force "repace direct ib[] read accesses
with the radeon_get_ib_value() helper function". But you don't do it
for *all* the radeon_get_ib_value(p, idx+2) users, so whatever.

Anyway - my conflict resolution isn't exactly the same as yours, and
maybe I screwed something up. But it's damn close, and the differences
_seem_ be all be benign.

Btw, why is it ok that some functions still read the ib[] array
directly (eg evergreen_vm_packet3_check() or evergreen_cs_check_reg()

Whatever. I prefer doing my own resolutions just so that I know what's
going on, and it all seems to build and looks reasonable, but it's
always good to get a second opinion. Particularly since I can't
actually test the radeon stuff, so just eyeballing it and saying
"looks semantically identical to Dave's resolution" may not be 100%

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at