linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c

between commit:

  b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
index beba39a38c87,0438071f58cf..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
@@@ -8,8 -8,7 +8,9 @@@
  #include <linux/pwm.h>
  #include <linux/string_helpers.h>
  
 +#include <acpi/video.h>
 +
+ #include "i915_reg.h"
  #include "intel_backlight.h"
  #include "intel_backlight_regs.h"
  #include "intel_connector.h"

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c

between commit:

  b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
index beba39a38c87,0438071f58cf..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
@@@ -8,8 -8,7 +8,9 @@@
  #include <linux/pwm.h>
  #include <linux/string_helpers.h>
  
 +#include <acpi/video.h>
 +
+ #include "i915_reg.h"
  #include "intel_backlight.h"
  #include "intel_backlight_regs.h"
  #include "intel_connector.h"

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c

between commit:

  b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
index beba39a38c87,0438071f58cf..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
@@@ -8,8 -8,7 +8,9 @@@
  #include <linux/pwm.h>
  #include <linux/string_helpers.h>
  
 +#include <acpi/video.h>
 +
+ #include "i915_reg.h"
  #include "intel_backlight.h"
  #include "intel_backlight_regs.h"
  #include "intel_connector.h"

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.

This is weird, because the:

   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.

This is weird, because the:

   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.

This is weird, because the:

   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>> 
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>> 
>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>> 
>> from the drm-intel tree.
>
> This is weird, because the:
>
>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>
> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>> 
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>> 
>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>> 
>> from the drm-intel tree.
>
> This is weird, because the:
>
>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>
> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>> 
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>> 
>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>> 
>> from the drm-intel tree.
>
> This is weird, because the:
>
>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>
> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>
>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>
>> This is weird, because the:
>>
>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>
>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> 
> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
4 weeks ago.

I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
it is released ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>
>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>
>> This is weird, because the:
>>
>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>
>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> 
> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
4 weeks ago.

I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
it is released ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>
>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>
>> This is weird, because the:
>>
>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>
>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> 
> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
4 weeks ago.

I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
it is released ?

Regards,

Hans

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>>
>>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>>
>>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>>
>>> This is weird, because the:
>>>
>>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
>> 
>> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
>
> Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> 4 weeks ago.

Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.

> I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> it is released ?

The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
reporting issues we find in linux-next.)

That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
it's time to backmerge drm-next?


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>>
>>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>>
>>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>>
>>> This is weird, because the:
>>>
>>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
>> 
>> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
>
> Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> 4 weeks ago.

Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.

> I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> it is released ?

The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
reporting issues we find in linux-next.)

That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
it's time to backmerge drm-next?


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>>
>>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>>
>>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>>
>>> This is weird, because the:
>>>
>>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
>> 
>> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
>
> Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> 4 weeks ago.

Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.

> I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> it is released ?

The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
reporting issues we find in linux-next.)

That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
it's time to backmerge drm-next?


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:02:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >>>>
> >>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> >>>>
> >>>> between commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>>
> >>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> >>>>
> >>>> from the drm-intel tree.
> >>>
> >>> This is weird, because the:
> >>>
> >>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>
> >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> >> 
> >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
> >
> > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> > 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.
> 
> > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> > it is released ?
> 
> The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
> than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
> folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
> reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
> reporting issues we find in linux-next.)
> 
> That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
> it's time to backmerge drm-next?

yeap, I'm on it...

> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:02:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >>>>
> >>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
> >>>>
> >>>> between commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>>
> >>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> >>>>
> >>>> from the drm-intel tree.
> >>>
> >>> This is weird, because the:
> >>>
> >>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>
> >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> >> 
> >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
> >
> > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> > 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.
> 
> > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> > it is released ?
> 
> The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
> than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
> folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
> reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
> reporting issues we find in linux-next.)
> 
> That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
> it's time to backmerge drm-next?

yeap, I'm on it...

> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1942 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:51:37 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   9031e0013f81 ("drm/amd/display: Fix mst hub unplug warning")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   191dc43935d1 ("drm/dp_mst: Store the MST PBN divider value in fixed point format")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

Actually, the resolution I used is below.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c
index c7a29bb737e2,53e323b71d26..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c
@@@ -209,11 -210,11 +210,11 @@@ static void dm_helpers_construct_old_pa
  			struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload *new_payload,
  			struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload *old_payload)
  {
 -	struct link_mst_stream_allocation_table current_link_table =
 -									link->mst_stream_alloc_table;
 -	struct link_mst_stream_allocation *dc_alloc;
 -	int pbn_per_slot = dfixed_trunc(pbn_per_slot_fp);
 -	int i;
 +	struct drm_dp_mst_atomic_payload *pos;
- 	int pbn_per_slot = mst_state->pbn_div;
++	int pbn_per_slot = dfixed_trunc(mst_state->pbn_div);
 +	u8 next_payload_vc_start = mgr->next_start_slot;
 +	u8 payload_vc_start = new_payload->vc_start_slot;
 +	u8 allocated_time_slots;
  
  	*old_payload = *new_payload;
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm_helpers.c

between commit:

  9031e0013f81 ("drm/amd/display: Fix mst hub unplug warning")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  191dc43935d1 ("drm/dp_mst: Store the MST PBN divider value in fixed point format")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c

between commit:

  2293a73ad4f3 ("drm/i915: Remove unused variable")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  e5e43d3363d7 ("drm/i915/display: Pass drm_i915_private as param to i915 funcs")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (the latter commit means that the variable removed in
the former is still needed - see below ) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
index cf1c0970ecb4,4a2dc43791c3..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
@@@ -936,9 -930,12 +930,11 @@@ static int i915_driver_open(struct drm_
   */
  static void i915_driver_lastclose(struct drm_device *dev)
  {
- 	intel_fbdev_restore_mode(dev);
+ 	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(dev);
+ 
+ 	intel_fbdev_restore_mode(i915);
  
 -	if (HAS_DISPLAY(i915))
 -		vga_switcheroo_process_delayed_switch();
 +	vga_switcheroo_process_delayed_switch();
  }
  
  static void i915_driver_postclose(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c

between commit:

  1c66a12ab431 ("drm/i915: Handle each GT on init/release and suspend/resume")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  3703060d17b0 ("drm/i915/display: remove drm_device aliases")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
index c459eb362c47,e7b2ebc6b88d..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
@@@ -337,10 -324,11 +337,11 @@@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(stru
  	if (i915_inject_probe_failure(dev_priv))
  		return -ENODEV;
  
- 	intel_device_info_subplatform_init(dev_priv);
+ 	intel_device_info_runtime_init_early(dev_priv);
+ 
  	intel_step_init(dev_priv);
  
 -	intel_uncore_mmio_debug_init_early(&dev_priv->mmio_debug);
 +	intel_uncore_mmio_debug_init_early(dev_priv);
  
  	spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
  	spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock);
@@@ -738,10 -716,6 +739,9 @@@ static void i915_driver_hw_remove(struc
   */
  static void i915_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
  {
- 	struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm;
 +	struct intel_gt *gt;
 +	unsigned int i;
 +
  	i915_gem_driver_register(dev_priv);
  	i915_pmu_register(dev_priv);
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c

between commit:

  56758cc45955 ("drm/i915/rps: Centralize computation of freq caps")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  ee421bb4cb95 ("drm/i915/pcode: Extend pcode functions for multiple gt's")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
index 3476a11f294c,ce61ceb07114..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
@@@ -1138,15 -1095,13 +1138,16 @@@ static void gen6_rps_init(struct intel_
  	if (IS_HASWELL(i915) || IS_BROADWELL(i915) ||
  	    IS_GEN9_BC(i915) || GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= 11) {
  		u32 ddcc_status = 0;
 +		u32 mult = 1;
  
 +		if (IS_GEN9_BC(i915) || GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= 11)
 +			mult = GEN9_FREQ_SCALER;
- 		if (snb_pcode_read(i915, HSW_PCODE_DYNAMIC_DUTY_CYCLE_CONTROL,
+ 		if (snb_pcode_read(rps_to_gt(rps)->uncore,
+ 				   HSW_PCODE_DYNAMIC_DUTY_CYCLE_CONTROL,
  				   &ddcc_status, NULL) == 0)
  			rps->efficient_freq =
 -				clamp_t(u8,
 -					(ddcc_status >> 8) & 0xff,
 +				clamp_t(u32,
 +					((ddcc_status >> 8) & 0xff) * mult,
  					rps->min_freq,
  					rps->max_freq);
  	}

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_regs.h

between commit:

  2518f226c60d ("Merge tag 'drm-next-2022-05-25' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  21c47196aec3 ("drm/i915/dmc: Add MMIO range restrictions")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (these were only white space differences, so I just used
the version from Linus' tree) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h

between commit:

  5e3094cfd9fb ("drm/i915/xehpsdv: Add has_flat_ccs to device info")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  072ce4164f97 ("drm/i915/dg2: Tile 4 plane format support")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
index 291215d9da28,8026e805ff12..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.h
@@@ -134,10 -131,9 +134,11 @@@ enum intel_ppgtt_type 
  	/* Keep has_* in alphabetical order */ \
  	func(has_64bit_reloc); \
  	func(has_64k_pages); \
 +	func(needs_compact_pt); \
  	func(gpu_reset_clobbers_display); \
  	func(has_reset_engine); \
 +	func(has_flat_ccs); \
+ 	func(has_4tile); \
  	func(has_global_mocs); \
  	func(has_gt_uc); \
  	func(has_guc_deprivilege); \

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2293 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c

between commit:

  132aaaf01788 ("drm/i915: add needs_compact_pt flag")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  072ce4164f97 ("drm/i915/dg2: Tile 4 plane format support")
  412c942bdfae ("drm/i915/ats-m: add ATS-M platform info")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (I think, see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
index c32c0c6661c8,8e321d300e0c..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
@@@ -1040,25 -1038,35 +1040,36 @@@ static const struct intel_device_info x
  	.require_force_probe = 1,
  };
  
+ #define DG2_FEATURES \
+ 	XE_HP_FEATURES, \
+ 	XE_HPM_FEATURES, \
+ 	DGFX_FEATURES, \
+ 	.graphics.rel = 55, \
+ 	.media.rel = 55, \
+ 	PLATFORM(INTEL_DG2), \
+ 	.has_4tile = 1, \
+ 	.has_64k_pages = 1, \
++	.needs_compact_pt = 1, \
+ 	.has_guc_deprivilege = 1, \
+ 	.platform_engine_mask = \
+ 		BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | \
+ 		BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VECS1) | \
+ 		BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2)
+ 
  __maybe_unused
  static const struct intel_device_info dg2_info = {
- 	XE_HP_FEATURES,
- 	XE_HPM_FEATURES,
+ 	DG2_FEATURES,
  	XE_LPD_FEATURES,
- 	DGFX_FEATURES,
- 	.graphics.rel = 55,
- 	.media.rel = 55,
- 	PLATFORM(INTEL_DG2),
- 	.has_guc_deprivilege = 1,
- 	.has_64k_pages = 1,
- 	.needs_compact_pt = 1,
- 	.platform_engine_mask =
- 		BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) |
- 		BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VECS1) |
- 		BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
- 	.require_force_probe = 1,
  	.display.cpu_transcoder_mask = BIT(TRANSCODER_A) | BIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
  			       BIT(TRANSCODER_C) | BIT(TRANSCODER_D),
+ 	.require_force_probe = 1,
+ };
+ 
+ __maybe_unused
+ static const struct intel_device_info ats_m_info = {
+ 	DG2_FEATURES,
+ 	.display = { 0 },
+ 	.require_force_probe = 1,
  };
  
  #undef PLATFORM

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c

between commit:

  cca084692394 ("drm/i915: Use per device iommu check")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  8172375ea95a ("drm/i915: Remove zombie async flip vt-d w/a")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former, so
I just did that) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed
as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should
be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for
merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer
of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.



-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4632 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h

between commit:

  77cdd054dd2c ("drm/i915/pmu: Connect engine busyness stats from GuC to pmu")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  202b1f4c1234 ("drm/i915/gt: Move engine registers to their own header")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below - maybe should be done better?) and can carry the
fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want
to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
index 971d601fe751,cf168c3e0471..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
@@@ -2661,52 -1825,7 +1843,9 @@@
  #define   AUX_INV		REG_BIT(0)
  #define BLT_HWS_PGA_GEN7	_MMIO(0x04280)
  #define VEBOX_HWS_PGA_GEN7	_MMIO(0x04380)
- #define RING_ACTHD(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x74)
- #define RING_ACTHD_UDW(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x5c)
- #define RING_NOPID(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x94)
- #define RING_IMR(base)		_MMIO((base) + 0xa8)
- #define RING_HWSTAM(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x98)
- #define RING_TIMESTAMP(base)		_MMIO((base) + 0x358)
- #define RING_TIMESTAMP_UDW(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x358 + 4)
- #define   TAIL_ADDR		0x001FFFF8
- #define   HEAD_WRAP_COUNT	0xFFE00000
- #define   HEAD_WRAP_ONE		0x00200000
- #define   HEAD_ADDR		0x001FFFFC
- #define   RING_NR_PAGES		0x001FF000
- #define   RING_REPORT_MASK	0x00000006
- #define   RING_REPORT_64K	0x00000002
- #define   RING_REPORT_128K	0x00000004
- #define   RING_NO_REPORT	0x00000000
- #define   RING_VALID_MASK	0x00000001
- #define   RING_VALID		0x00000001
- #define   RING_INVALID		0x00000000
- #define   RING_WAIT_I8XX	(1 << 0) /* gen2, PRBx_HEAD */
- #define   RING_WAIT		(1 << 11) /* gen3+, PRBx_CTL */
- #define   RING_WAIT_SEMAPHORE	(1 << 10) /* gen6+ */
  
 +#define GUCPMTIMESTAMP          _MMIO(0xC3E8)
 +
- /* There are 16 64-bit CS General Purpose Registers per-engine on Gen8+ */
- #define GEN8_RING_CS_GPR(base, n)	_MMIO((base) + 0x600 + (n) * 8)
- #define GEN8_RING_CS_GPR_UDW(base, n)	_MMIO((base) + 0x600 + (n) * 8 + 4)
- 
- #define RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV(base, i) _MMIO(((base) + 0x4D0) + (i) * 4)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ADDRESS_MASK	REG_GENMASK(25, 2)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_RW	(0 << 28)    /* CFL+ & Gen11+ */
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_RD	(1 << 28)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_WR	(2 << 28)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_INVALID	(3 << 28)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_MASK	(3 << 28)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_1		(0 << 0)     /* CFL+ & Gen11+ */
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_4		(1 << 0)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_16	(2 << 0)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_64	(3 << 0)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_MASK	(3 << 0)
- #define   RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_MASK_VALID	\
- 					(RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_RANGE_MASK \
- 					| RING_FORCE_TO_NONPRIV_ACCESS_MASK)
- #define   RING_MAX_NONPRIV_SLOTS  12
- 
  #define GEN7_TLB_RD_ADDR	_MMIO(0x4700)
  
  #define GEN9_GAMT_ECO_REG_RW_IA _MMIO(0x4ab0)
@@@ -2778,27 -1885,7 +1905,10 @@@
  #define GEN2_INSTDONE	_MMIO(0x2090)
  #define NOPID		_MMIO(0x2094)
  #define HWSTAM		_MMIO(0x2098)
- #define DMA_FADD_I8XX(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0xd0)
- #define RING_BBSTATE(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x110)
- #define   RING_BB_PPGTT		(1 << 5)
- #define RING_SBBADDR(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x114) /* hsw+ */
- #define RING_SBBSTATE(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x118) /* hsw+ */
- #define RING_SBBADDR_UDW(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x11c) /* gen8+ */
- #define RING_BBADDR(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x140)
- #define RING_BBADDR_UDW(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x168) /* gen8+ */
- #define RING_BB_PER_CTX_PTR(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x1c0) /* gen8+ */
- #define RING_INDIRECT_CTX(base)		_MMIO((base) + 0x1c4) /* gen8+ */
- #define RING_INDIRECT_CTX_OFFSET(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x1c8) /* gen8+ */
- #define RING_CTX_TIMESTAMP(base)	_MMIO((base) + 0x3a8) /* gen8+ */
- 
- #define VDBOX_CGCTL3F10(base)		_MMIO((base) + 0x3f10)
- #define   IECPUNIT_CLKGATE_DIS		REG_BIT(22)
  
 +#define VDBOX_CGCTL3F18(base)		_MMIO((base) + 0x3f18)
 +#define   ALNUNIT_CLKGATE_DIS		REG_BIT(13)
 +
  #define ERROR_GEN6	_MMIO(0x40a0)
  #define GEN7_ERR_INT	_MMIO(0x44040)
  #define   ERR_INT_POISON		(1 << 31)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Mark Brown]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c

between commit:

  b4bde5554f70 ("drm/i915/display: split DISPLAY_VER 9 and 10 in intel_setup_outputs()")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  cad83b405fe4 ("drm/i915/display: remove PORT_F workaround for CNL")
  ec387b8ff8d7 ("drm/i915/display: split DISPLAY_VER 9 and 10 in intel_setup_outputs()")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
index 557871ee07db,3faedcb7ef42..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 20 May 2021 10:19:10 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   293837b9ac8d ("Revert "i915: fix remap_io_sg to verify the pgprot"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   ec279384c6a0 ("drm/i915: Initialize err in remap_io_sg()")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> 
> diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
> index 9a777b0ff59b,25576fa73ff0..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
> @@@ -82,13 -46,8 +82,13 @@@ int remap_io_sg(struct vm_area_struct *
>   		unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
>   		struct scatterlist *sgl, resource_size_t iobase)
>   {
>  -	unsigned long pfn, len, remapped = 0;
>  +	struct remap_pfn r = {
>  +		.mm = vma->vm_mm,
>  +		.prot = vma->vm_page_prot,
>  +		.sgt = __sgt_iter(sgl, use_dma(iobase)),
>  +		.iobase = iobase,
>  +	};
> - 	int err;
> + 	int err = 0;
>   
>   	/* We rely on prevalidation of the io-mapping to skip track_pfn(). */
>   	GEM_BUG_ON((vma->vm_flags & EXPECTED_FLAGS) != EXPECTED_FLAGS);

This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1458 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c

between commit:

  293837b9ac8d ("Revert "i915: fix remap_io_sg to verify the pgprot"")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  ec279384c6a0 ("drm/i915: Initialize err in remap_io_sg()")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
index 9a777b0ff59b,25576fa73ff0..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_mm.c
@@@ -82,13 -46,8 +82,13 @@@ int remap_io_sg(struct vm_area_struct *
  		unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
  		struct scatterlist *sgl, resource_size_t iobase)
  {
 -	unsigned long pfn, len, remapped = 0;
 +	struct remap_pfn r = {
 +		.mm = vma->vm_mm,
 +		.prot = vma->vm_page_prot,
 +		.sgt = __sgt_iter(sgl, use_dma(iobase)),
 +		.iobase = iobase,
 +	};
- 	int err;
+ 	int err = 0;
  
  	/* We rely on prevalidation of the io-mapping to skip track_pfn(). */
  	GEM_BUG_ON((vma->vm_flags & EXPECTED_FLAGS) != EXPECTED_FLAGS);

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 761 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c

between commit:

  e7c6e405e171 ("Fix misc new gcc warnings")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  c6deb5e97ded ("drm/i915/pm: Make the wm parameter of print_wm_latency a pointer")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 9/8/20 1:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:22:06 +0200 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/8/20 6:00 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>     f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")
> 
> This should have been
> 
>    899c537c25f9 ("drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro")

Yes that makes more sense.

>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>
>>>     6b51e7d23aa8 ("drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller")
>>
>> That doesn't sound correct, those are both commits from the drm-intel tree.
>>
>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (I just used the latter)
>>
>> Just taking the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c contents of:
>>
>> f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")
>>
>> Is the right thing to do, the problem is a difference in a line which gets
>> removed in that commit.
> 
> Which is what I actually did, I guess :-)

Yes, looks good.

> Sorry about that.

No problem and thank you for all the work you do on -next.

Regards,

Hans

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1208 bytes --]

Hi Hans,

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:22:06 +0200 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/20 6:00 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >    f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")

This should have been

  899c537c25f9 ("drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro")

> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >    6b51e7d23aa8 ("drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller")  
> 
> That doesn't sound correct, those are both commits from the drm-intel tree.
> 
> > from the drm-intel tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter)  
> 
> Just taking the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c contents of:
> 
> f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")
> 
> Is the right thing to do, the problem is a difference in a line which gets
> removed in that commit.

Which is what I actually did, I guess :-)

Sorry about that.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Hans de Goede]

Hi Stephen,

On 9/8/20 6:00 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>    6b51e7d23aa8 ("drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller")

That doesn't sound correct, those are both commits from the drm-intel tree.

> from the drm-intel tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter)

Just taking the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c contents of:

f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")

Is the right thing to do, the problem is a difference in a line which gets
removed in that commit.

Regards,

Hans

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c

between commit:

  f8bd54d21904 ("drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API for devs with an external PWM controller")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  6b51e7d23aa8 ("drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1378 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h

between commit:

  7fb81e9d8073 ("drm/i915: Use drmm_add_final_kfree")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  8a25c4be583d ("drm/i915/params: switch to device specific parameters")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index adb9bf34cf97,2697960f15a9..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@@ -826,9 -827,9 +827,12 @@@ struct i915_selftest_stash 
  struct drm_i915_private {
  	struct drm_device drm;
  
+ 	/* i915 device parameters */
+ 	struct i915_params params;
+ 
 +	/* FIXME: Device release actions should all be moved to drmm_ */
 +	bool do_release;
 +
  	const struct intel_device_info __info; /* Use INTEL_INFO() to access. */
  	struct intel_runtime_info __runtime; /* Use RUNTIME_INFO() to access. */
  	struct intel_driver_caps caps;

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2018-03-23 02:50:18)
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:21:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fa3dd623e559 ("drm/i915/gvt: keep oa config in shadow ctx")
> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >   b20c0d5ce104 ("drm/i915/gvt: Update PDPs after a vGPU mm object is pinned.")
> > 
> > from the drm-intel tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for solving this, the resolution is correct.

You may want to replace Daniel, as the recipient here, with the current
i915 maintainers to get a faster feedback next time :)

<SNIP>

> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.
> 

My bad for not highlighting the merge conflict in my PR to Dave. He
probably did not notice, getting the resolution automatically from
drm-rerere, I'd guess. I've noted it in the ever improving draft of
things to remember with the PRs.

I'm very much currently flying based on what the previous PR authors
have remembered to tell me. But after 4.17, the cycle is complete and we
all "have been there, done that", and you can expect less of a turbulence.

(We'll probably have more magnificent documentation, too.)

Regards, Joonas

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2018-03-23 02:50:18)
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:21:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fa3dd623e559 ("drm/i915/gvt: keep oa config in shadow ctx")
> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >   b20c0d5ce104 ("drm/i915/gvt: Update PDPs after a vGPU mm object is pinned.")
> > 
> > from the drm-intel tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for solving this, the resolution is correct.

You may want to replace Daniel, as the recipient here, with the current
i915 maintainers to get a faster feedback next time :)

<SNIP>

> This is now a conflict between the drm tree and Linus' tree.
> 

My bad for not highlighting the merge conflict in my PR to Dave. He
probably did not notice, getting the resolution automatically from
drm-rerere, I'd guess. I've noted it in the ever improving draft of
things to remember with the PRs.

I'm very much currently flying based on what the previous PR authors
have remembered to tell me. But after 4.17, the cycle is complete and we
all "have been there, done that", and you can expect less of a turbulence.

(We'll probably have more magnificent documentation, too.)

Regards, Joonas

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel