Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/powerplay: mark symbols static where possible

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:07:16 PM CEST Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> > > > In fact, these functions are only used in the file in which they are
> > > > declared and don't need a declaration, but can be made static.
> > > > So this patch marks these functions with 'static'.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This was already applied the last time you sent it out.  Sorry if I
> > > didn't mention that previously.
> > 
> > For some reason the patch hasn't made it into linux-next, so I can see
> > why Baoyou was getting confused here. Can you clarify what the timeline
> > is for the AMD DRM driver patches from between they get applied to the
> > AMD tree to when they make it into linux-next?
> > 
> 
> It came in late enough last cycle that it didn't make it into 4.9 (this is just a clean up not a critical bug fix), so I queued it for 4.10.  I try to reply when I apply a patch, but sometimes I miss one here and there.  Once Dave starts the drm-next tree for 4.10, it will be included in my pull request.  Pending -next patches are in my drm-next-<kernel version>-wip tree until I send Dave a formal request.
> 
> > I've occasionally had a hard time with DRM (and a few other subsystems)
> > with bugfix patches trying to find out whether they got lost or
> > whether they just haven't made it into -next but are in some other tree.
> > 
> 
> For bug fixes we usually send Dave ~weekly pull requests for each -rc as necessary.  For -next stuff, each driver usually sends at least one, sometimes several pull requests for the next merge window.

Ok, got it. Thanks for the detailed reply!

Do you think it would be appropriate to include your drm-next-wip tree in
linux-next? I think this is how a lot of the multi-level maintainer
setups work as it give faster feedback about when things break.

	Arnd