Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/doc: Allow new UAPI to be used once it's in the driver's -next.

[Dave Airlie]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 05:35, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:56:16AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > I was trying to figure out if it was permissible to merge the Mesa
> > side of V3D's CSD support yet while it's in drm-misc-next but not
> > drm-next, and developers on #dri-devel IRC had differing opinions of
> > what the requirement was.  Propose a clarification here to see if Dave
> > Airlie agrees.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Personally, I thought the rule was "has to be in drm-next", but
> > assuming our review processes aren't totally broken, this should be
> > enough.
>
> Yeah if you end up with a revert on your hands the process failed much
> harder and you get to keep the pieces no matter what. Not sure we should
> clarify whether you need a stable sha1 or not (helps with cross
> referencing uapi header updates), but imo good as is. And matches what
> I've been doing/recommending past few years.
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> >  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > index c9fd23efd957..8e5545dfbf82 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > @@ -92,8 +92,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
> >    requirements by doing a quick fork.
> >
> >  - The kernel patch can only be merged after all the above requirements are met,
> > -  but it **must** be merged **before** the userspace patches land. uAPI always flows
> > -  from the kernel, doing things the other way round risks divergence of the uAPI
> > +  but it **must** be merged to the driver's -next tree (as documented in
> > +  MAINTAINERS) **before** the userspace patches land. uAPI always flows from
> > +  the kernel, doing things the other way round risks divergence of the uAPI
> >    definitions and header files.

I'd rather restrict this to drm-next and drm-misc-next, I frankly
don't trust driver trees here to have the review practices in place.

I trust drm-misc-next to have at least had someone unrelated look over
the new api.

Dave.