[Quantal][SRU] Updated i915 driver for HSW support

Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com
Mon Dec 3 18:01:24 UTC 2012


On 12/03/2012 06:36 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 12/01/2012 12:13 AM, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085245
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Given this set of patches should be well contained and really only
>> affect Haswell hardware, I propose we try and pull it in for the
>> upcoming Quantal kernel SRU cycle.  It will allow us to ensure we see no
>> regressions on non-Haswell hardware but also allow us to start more
>> widespread testing against the Haswell hardware we do have access to.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leann
>>
> 
> Initially I was quite conflicted about this patch set because its a bit difficult to asses the impact on existing platforms. Obviously we can't regress Haswell GPUs (because they currently don't work at all), but I was a bit concerned about regression
> potential for non-Haswell GPUs. I think the best way to look at this patch set is from the perspective of what has been changed in the core kernel, e.g., simply ignore Haswell specific code. You can see what has changed in the main kernel by looking at it
> thus (after applying all of the Haswell patches on top of 'Linux 3.5.7.1' :
> 
> git log --reverse -p d45afedb9671c093e8c185da7dc84a0dc9697e91..HEAD -- drivers/gpu/
> 
> With the exception of the patch that creates drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm_hsw.c, everything else is a (mostly) benign addition or a bonafide bug fix. Perhaps for clarity drm_mm_hsw.c could be moved under the ubuntu directory?
> 
> In general, maintenance of the drm patches are going to be a giant pain in the ass simply because _anything_ having to do with Haswell won't be considered stable material by upstream (patches from 3.8), so we're gonna have to keep an eye out for drm
> patches that are applicable to our bastardized pile.
> 
> Have you considered dropping the whole drm stack from hsw-backport-3.6 into the ubuntu directory with name space isolation ? Since its pretty close to what'll end up in 3.8, it might make maintenance simpler since we can relatively easily groom drm and
> Haswell GPU patches from 3.8 and subsequent stable updates. We could also isolate changes from LTS Quantal by turning off the config option.
> 
> I guess I'm OK with this patch set, but I would like to hear from the stable team.
> 
> rtg

The stable team is prepared for this. We've all been looking over the
patchset. Since Herton is already doing 3.5 maintenance and looking
for patches to pull back he'll be looking for Haswell patches as well
as any others. If the past tells us anything Intel (and others) will
also be directing patches our way. Isolating the drm code sounds like
a nice idea.

Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com




More information about the kernel-team mailing list