For merging the patches for new hardware and/or features I agree on the
process of merging things bottom up. (e.g kernel first, then libdrm,
mesa last). But to give reasons for the merge into Linus tree it's
usually better to have a "big picture" you can validate the code against.
So I think t
Having patches on a mailing list is good enough, but generally if
people *trust* you that you will have an open userspace, that's good
enough too if you have people's trust.
In my opinion, the required kernel code must land in Linus's tree
first. If it's not there, it's like it didn't exist at all
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:41:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Reding
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:41:50PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Reding
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thie
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:26:24PM -0800, I
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:30:34PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 09-11-13 22:26, Ian Romanick schreef:
> > On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patch
op 09-11-13 22:26, Ian Romanick schreef:
> On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patches that use
it" sufficient to get the kernel interface merged?
>>> Tha
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thierry Reding
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> >> On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >> On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> >>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfac
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> >>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
>> >>> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/lib
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
> >>> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patches that use
> >>> it" sufficient to get the kernel i
On 11/09/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
>>> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patches that use
>>> it" sufficient to get the kernel interface merged?
>>
>> That's my understanding: open source userspace
>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
>> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patches that use
>> it" sufficient to get the kernel interface merged?
>
> That's my understanding: open source userspace needs to exist, but it
> doesn't need to be merg
On 11/08/2013 02:32 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Since we seemed to have some confusion over this I'll state it clearly here.
>>
>> You should not merge kernel interface and ioctls to libdrm until they
>> have appeared in a git commit upstream wit
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Since we seemed to have some confusion over this I'll state it clearly here.
>
> You should not merge kernel interface and ioctls to libdrm until they
> have appeared in a git commit upstream with a stable id, this
> generally means drm-next, b
Since we seemed to have some confusion over this I'll state it clearly here.
You should not merge kernel interface and ioctls to libdrm until they
have appeared in a git commit upstream with a stable id, this
generally means drm-next, but can also mean drm-intel-next.
You shouldn't assume that st
16 matches
Mail list logo
