On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 03:43:35PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Harsha Sharma (2017-10-08 15:04:07)
@@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static bool intel_fbdev_init_bios(struct drm_device *dev, ifbdev->preferred_bpp = fb->base.format->cpp[0] * 8; ifbdev->fb = fb;
drm_framebuffer_reference(&ifbdev->fb->base);
drm_framebuffer_put(&ifbdev->fb->base);Whoops.
Hm yeah, how did this happen? Does cocci really do this, or is that an accident from manually fixing stuff up?
Running the spatch from the commit message gives me the correct substitution: @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ static bool intel_fbdev_init_bios(struct drm_device *dev, ifbdev->preferred_bpp = fb->base.format->cpp[0] * 8; ifbdev->fb = fb;
- drm_framebuffer_reference(&ifbdev->fb->base); + drm_framebuffer_get(&ifbdev->fb->base);
/* Final pass to check if any active pipes don't have fbs */ for_each_crtc(dev, crtc) {
Probably just finger slip since this is the last chunk before the omitted selftests changes.
Harsha: the "better" way to omit the selftests without hand tuning the patch would be to run the cocci spatch on i915 as normal, and then run "git checkout -- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/" before committing. It's dangerous to edit patches by hand, or to misrepresent a patch as being the result of a cocci spatch when it's not.
Sean
-Daniel
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch