Hi 2014-02-10 15:23 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch>: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:17:03PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:51:09PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com> >> > >> > We want to remove those 3 boolean arguments. This is the first step. >> > The "pipe" passed as the argument is always intel_crtc->pipe. >> > >> > Also adjust the function documentation. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lesp...@intel.com> > > Ok, I've pulled in the entire series, but a bunch of things changed so had > to resolve some (minor) conflicts. Please double-check that I didn't botch > things up too badly.
You forgot to apply patch 2, and this is probably the reason why every subsequent patch gave you a conflict. You also applied patch 3 twice: once for Ironlake and once for Haswell. You shouldn't change the Ironlake function. Do you plan to rebase or do I need to submit patches on top? IMHO if a series starts getting messy to apply, I think you should probably just ask the author to rebase and resend the final stuff. Maybe with this we would be able to reduce the amount of bad merges, which is becoming a very common problem, at least for my patches. Thanks, Paulo > > Thanks, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
