From: Hans de Goede <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 14:20:42
Hi,
On 1/26/21 1:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
Thanks,
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
The following changes since commit 5c8fe583cce542aa0b84adc939ce85293de36e5e:
Linux 5.11-rc1 (2020-12-27 15:30:22 -0800)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://git.infradead.org/linux-platform-drivers-x86.git tags/ib-drm-gpio-pdx86-rtc-wdt-v5.12-1
for you to fetch changes up to a507e5d90f3d6846a02d9c2c79e6f6395982db92:
platform/x86: intel_scu_wdt: Get rid of custom x86 model comparison (2021-01-25 20:05:32 +0200)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ib-drm-gpio-pdx86-rtc-wdt for v5.12-1
First part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal.
The following is an automated git shortlog grouped by driver:
drm/gma500:
- Get rid of duplicate NULL checks
- Convert to use new SCU IPC API
gpio:
- msic: Remove driver for deprecated platform
- intel-mid: Remove driver for deprecated platform
intel_mid_powerbtn:
- Remove driver for deprecated platform
intel_mid_thermal:
- Remove driver for deprecated platform
intel_scu_wdt:
- Get rid of custom x86 model comparison
- Drop SCU notification
- Move driver from arch/x86
rtc:
- mrst: Remove driver for deprecated platform
watchdog:
- intel-mid_wdt: Postpone IRQ handler registration till SCU is ready
- intel_scu_watchdog: Remove driver for deprecated platform
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Shevchenko (12):
drm/gma500: Convert to use new SCU IPC API
drm/gma500: Get rid of duplicate NULL checks
gpio: intel-mid: Remove driver for deprecated platform
gpio: msic: Remove driver for deprecated platform
platform/x86: intel_mid_thermal: Remove driver for deprecated platform
platform/x86: intel_mid_powerbtn: Remove driver for deprecated platform
Erm, I already have this 2 in platform-drivers-x86/for-next since you said that
these 2 could be merged independently.
Anyways I just did a test-merge and there is no conflict, so everything is ok.
From my pov this looks good and I plan to merge this into platform-drivers-x86/for-next
before the merge-window.
I'm going to hold off on doing that for a bit for now in case one of the other
subsys maintainers has any objections.
Regards,
Hans
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 14:28:38
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:23 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi,
On 1/26/21 1:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
...
quoted
platform/x86: intel_mid_thermal: Remove driver for deprecated platform
platform/x86: intel_mid_powerbtn: Remove driver for deprecated platform
Erm, I already have this 2 in platform-drivers-x86/for-next since you said that
these 2 could be merged independently.
Yes, you may merge this on top, shouldn't be any conflicts.
But this mail originally was sent a couple of days ago, I had a
problem with my email setup.
Anyways I just did a test-merge and there is no conflict, so everything is ok.
Yep. That's how it works :)
From my pov this looks good and I plan to merge this into platform-drivers-x86/for-next
before the merge-window.
I'm going to hold off on doing that for a bit for now in case one of the other
subsys maintainers has any objections.
Noted and thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Thanks
Patrik
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 15:52:16
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
I.o.w. we probably can remove the oldest stuff in the driver WRT above
mentioned platforms, but leave the driver for the rest.
I wouldn't be in a hurry with this though, display drivers are easy to
remove, but really hard to get back on velocity after that.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
I.o.w. we probably can remove the oldest stuff in the driver WRT above
mentioned platforms, but leave the driver for the rest.
I wouldn't be in a hurry with this though, display drivers are easy to
remove, but really hard to get back on velocity after that.
Ok, I'll have a look at removing Medfield. That code should have been
removed a long time ago.
-Patrik
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:33 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 1/26/21 6:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
Actually Moorestown had to be removed a few years ago (kernel won't
boot on them anyway from that date when Alan removed support under
arch/x86 for it).
Ok. I lump Moorestown and Oaktrail together since they have the same
Z6xx series CPU/GPU (GMA600). I still have a working Oaktrail device
so that support should stay in gma500.
quoted
quoted
I'm talking about Merrifield and Moorefield that can utilize it and
also some other platforms that are not SFI based (Cedar something...
IIRC).
Yes at least there are some 64 bit capable SoCs with GMA500 which were
used in NAS like devices. These NAS-es actually have a VGA output
(and maybe also DVI?) which is attached to the GMA500.
Yes these should be Cedarview/Cedartrail. Some of them are 64-bit and
some are 32-bit. I think it came down to if bios enabled it or not.
Cedarview comes with VGA, DVI and eDP/DP. Quite a few Cedarview
devices exist in the wild.
Since you are talking about 64-bit, definitely they are *not*
Moorestown, Medfield, Clovertrail since the mentioned never were
64-bit. But it would be nice to see the CPU model number to be sure.
quoted
I know people are running Fedora on these, so we should at least keep
these supported.
Is it possible to gather the CPU model number from them? (Or at least
the exact device/box name)
Yes, it would be interesting to know more about Clovertrail. gma500
only supports up to the Cedarview GPUs but Clovertrail might also use
a Cedarview GPU.
-Patrik
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-01-27 10:05:28
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:33 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
On 1/26/21 6:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
Actually Moorestown had to be removed a few years ago (kernel won't
boot on them anyway from that date when Alan removed support under
arch/x86 for it).
I'm talking about Merrifield and Moorefield that can utilize it and
also some other platforms that are not SFI based (Cedar something...
IIRC).
Yes at least there are some 64 bit capable SoCs with GMA500 which were
used in NAS like devices. These NAS-es actually have a VGA output
(and maybe also DVI?) which is attached to the GMA500.
Since you are talking about 64-bit, definitely they are *not*
Moorestown, Medfield, Clovertrail since the mentioned never were
64-bit. But it would be nice to see the CPU model number to be sure.
I know people are running Fedora on these, so we should at least keep
these supported.
Is it possible to gather the CPU model number from them? (Or at least
the exact device/box name)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
From: Hans de Goede <hidden> Date: 2021-01-27 10:06:03
Hi,
On 1/26/21 6:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
Actually Moorestown had to be removed a few years ago (kernel won't
boot on them anyway from that date when Alan removed support under
arch/x86 for it).
I'm talking about Merrifield and Moorefield that can utilize it and
also some other platforms that are not SFI based (Cedar something...
IIRC).
Yes at least there are some 64 bit capable SoCs with GMA500 which were
used in NAS like devices. These NAS-es actually have a VGA output
(and maybe also DVI?) which is attached to the GMA500.
I know people are running Fedora on these, so we should at least keep
these supported.
Regards,
Hans
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-01-27 10:07:03
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
Actually Moorestown had to be removed a few years ago (kernel won't
boot on them anyway from that date when Alan removed support under
arch/x86 for it).
I'm talking about Merrifield and Moorefield that can utilize it and
also some other platforms that are not SFI based (Cedar something...
IIRC).
quoted
I.o.w. we probably can remove the oldest stuff in the driver WRT above
mentioned platforms, but leave the driver for the rest.
I wouldn't be in a hurry with this though, display drivers are easy to
remove, but really hard to get back on velocity after that.
Ok, I'll have a look at removing Medfield. That code should have been
removed a long time ago.
From: Hans de Goede <hidden> Date: 2021-01-27 20:02:02
Hi,
On 1/26/21 9:54 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:33 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 1/26/21 6:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:55 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
Nope. It is related to only Medfield / Clovertrail platforms.
There are other (MID) platforms that may / might utilize this driver
in the future.
Right, there's still Oaktrail / Moorestown with hardware in the wild.
Actually Moorestown had to be removed a few years ago (kernel won't
boot on them anyway from that date when Alan removed support under
arch/x86 for it).
I'm talking about Merrifield and Moorefield that can utilize it and
also some other platforms that are not SFI based (Cedar something...
IIRC).
Yes at least there are some 64 bit capable SoCs with GMA500 which were
used in NAS like devices. These NAS-es actually have a VGA output
(and maybe also DVI?) which is attached to the GMA500.
Since you are talking about 64-bit, definitely they are *not*
Moorestown, Medfield, Clovertrail since the mentioned never were
64-bit. But it would be nice to see the CPU model number to be sure.
My info on this comes from this bugreport:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665766
And the machine that bugreport is about is a "Thecus N5550 NAS box (Intel Atom D2550/Cedarview platform)"
Regards,
Hans
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 09:55:53
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:23 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
On 1/26/21 1:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
Erm, I already have this 2 in platform-drivers-x86/for-next since you said that
these 2 could be merged independently.
Anyways I just did a test-merge and there is no conflict, so everything is ok.
From my pov this looks good and I plan to merge this into platform-drivers-x86/for-next
before the merge-window.
I'm going to hold off on doing that for a bit for now in case one of the other
subsys maintainers has any objections.
Any news on this? Have you pulled it somewhere (I don't see it in Linux next)?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 09:58:48
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
Bart, can you pull this into GPIO for-next, please? I would like to
base my PR on top of your for-next with this one included.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
From: Hans de Goede <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 10:37:49
Hi,
On 2/3/21 10:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:23 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 1/26/21 1:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
quoted
Erm, I already have this 2 in platform-drivers-x86/for-next since you said that
these 2 could be merged independently.
Anyways I just did a test-merge and there is no conflict, so everything is ok.
From my pov this looks good and I plan to merge this into platform-drivers-x86/for-next
before the merge-window.
I'm going to hold off on doing that for a bit for now in case one of the other
subsys maintainers has any objections.
Any news on this? Have you pulled it somewhere (I don't see it in Linux next)?
I was going through all pending pdx86 stuff yesterday to prep for the upcoming
merge-window. I was doing so in FIFO order and I ran out of steam just as I got
to this pull-req.
So today is a new day and after sending out a fixes pull-req for 5.11 this is
(was) the first thing on my list.
I've merged this into my review-hans now (and I will push it to for-next soon).
I did one last check of all the commits after merging, and I found one small
issue.
The "gpio: msic: Remove driver for deprecated platform" commit forgets to
drop the Makefile line for the msic driver:
obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MSIC) += gpio-msic.o
This is not a reason to redo the entire branch, but it would be good if you
can do a follow up patch to fix this.
Regards,
Hans
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 11:09:05
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:35:59AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 2/3/21 10:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:23 PM Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 1/26/21 1:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
(All changes are tagged by the respective maintainers)
quoted
Erm, I already have this 2 in platform-drivers-x86/for-next since you said that
these 2 could be merged independently.
Anyways I just did a test-merge and there is no conflict, so everything is ok.
From my pov this looks good and I plan to merge this into platform-drivers-x86/for-next
before the merge-window.
I'm going to hold off on doing that for a bit for now in case one of the other
subsys maintainers has any objections.
Any news on this? Have you pulled it somewhere (I don't see it in Linux next)?
I was going through all pending pdx86 stuff yesterday to prep for the upcoming
merge-window. I was doing so in FIFO order and I ran out of steam just as I got
to this pull-req.
So today is a new day and after sending out a fixes pull-req for 5.11 this is
(was) the first thing on my list.
I've merged this into my review-hans now (and I will push it to for-next soon).
I did one last check of all the commits after merging, and I found one small
issue.
The "gpio: msic: Remove driver for deprecated platform" commit forgets to
drop the Makefile line for the msic driver:
obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MSIC) += gpio-msic.o
This is not a reason to redo the entire branch, but it would be good if you
can do a follow up patch to fix this.
Indeed. Thanks for catching this, I'll fixed locally and will send it soon.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 12:01:14
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
Hi Andy, sorry I missed pulling the immutable branch before taking the
gma500 medfield removal. I was unsure how to do that through drm-misc
and it's tools so I got sidetracked. What would be the correct way to
fix this?
-Patrik
From: Daniel Vetter <hidden> Date: 2021-02-04 10:37:34
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:19 AM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
Hi Andy, sorry I missed pulling the immutable branch before taking the
gma500 medfield removal. I was unsure how to do that through drm-misc
and it's tools so I got sidetracked. What would be the correct way to
fix this?
Imo Linus can resolve this, it's pretty trivial, as long as both pull
requests point it out to him.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
From: Hans de Goede <hidden> Date: 2021-02-04 10:51:53
Hi,
On 2/4/21 11:36 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:19 AM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
Hi Andy, sorry I missed pulling the immutable branch before taking the
gma500 medfield removal. I was unsure how to do that through drm-misc
and it's tools so I got sidetracked. What would be the correct way to
fix this?
Imo Linus can resolve this, it's pretty trivial, as long as both pull
requests point it out to him.
The removal of older Intel platforms touches a number of subsystem trees,
the idea about the IM branch was that all subsystem-trees would merge that.
I can certainly point out the problem in the pdx86 pull-req to Linus,
but the GPIO pull-req also contains a merge of the IM branch as will
the x86/tip and rtc pull-reqs I believe. We can add a remark to all
the pull-reqs about the issue I guess ?
But it might be better to still merge the branch into drm-misc-next and
resolve the conflict there. I think that should avoid Linus seeing it ?
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:19 AM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi guys,
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
Hi Andy, sorry I missed pulling the immutable branch before taking the
gma500 medfield removal. I was unsure how to do that through drm-misc
and it's tools so I got sidetracked. What would be the correct way to
fix this?
Imo Linus can resolve this, it's pretty trivial, as long as both pull
requests point it out to him.
The removal of older Intel platforms touches a number of subsystem trees,
the idea about the IM branch was that all subsystem-trees would merge that.
I can certainly point out the problem in the pdx86 pull-req to Linus,
but the GPIO pull-req also contains a merge of the IM branch as will
the x86/tip and rtc pull-reqs I believe. We can add a remark to all
the pull-reqs about the issue I guess ?
FWIW, I'm not going to merge the PR in the rtc tree because it is a
simple removal and doesn't have any conflicts.
But it might be better to still merge the branch into drm-misc-next and
resolve the conflict there. I think that should avoid Linus seeing it ?
Linus doesn't mind seeing and solving conflicts.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden> Date: 2021-02-04 14:29:37
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:57:52AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 04/02/2021 11:50:03+0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
quoted
On 2/4/21 11:36 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:19 AM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:25 PM Patrik Jakobsson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
This is first part of Intel MID outdated platforms removal. It's collected into
immutable branch with a given tag, please pull to yours subsystems.
Hi Andy,
Do you plan on eventually removing X86_INTEL_MID completely? If so,
then I should probably start looking at removing the corresponding
parts in GMA500.
I have noticed new commits in DRM against GMA500 and it seems now in a
conflict with my immutable branch. Are you sure you don't forget to
pull it?
Hi Andy, sorry I missed pulling the immutable branch before taking the
gma500 medfield removal. I was unsure how to do that through drm-misc
and it's tools so I got sidetracked. What would be the correct way to
fix this?
Imo Linus can resolve this, it's pretty trivial, as long as both pull
requests point it out to him.
The removal of older Intel platforms touches a number of subsystem trees,
the idea about the IM branch was that all subsystem-trees would merge that.
I can certainly point out the problem in the pdx86 pull-req to Linus,
but the GPIO pull-req also contains a merge of the IM branch as will
the x86/tip and rtc pull-reqs I believe. We can add a remark to all
the pull-reqs about the issue I guess ?
FWIW, I'm not going to merge the PR in the rtc tree because it is a
simple removal and doesn't have any conflicts.
quoted
But it might be better to still merge the branch into drm-misc-next and
resolve the conflict there. I think that should avoid Linus seeing it ?
Linus doesn't mind seeing and solving conflicts.
Yes, but in this case the conflict is artificially created by us in the first
place and shouldn't be there from the day 1. I consider merging immutable tag
to DRM misc would be the less intrusive solution.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko