From: Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@u92.eu>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sean@poorly.run,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dmr/msm: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:25:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUj8RHdl7aIONPa0@zacax395.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202109200942.M3etmn3s-lkp@intel.com>
On 21/09/20 09:54AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on drm-exynos/exynos-drm-next]
> [also build test ERROR on tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.15-rc2 next-20210917]
I forgot to #include <drm/drm_drv.h> for those platforms and didn't notice
because I only tried to build for X86. I'll fix it.
> [cannot apply to drm-intel/for-linux-next tegra/for-next drm-tip/drm-tip airlied/drm-next]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base'.
I built this patch against drm-next, which currently points to v5.15-rc1.
Should I be targeting a different branch? In any case, as suggested, I'll
remember to use "--base" in the future to make it easier to apply. Thanks for
the hint.
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/drm/drm_crtc.h:36,
> from include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:31,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot.h:9,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:8:
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c: In function 'msm_disp_capture_atomic_state':
> >> include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h:167:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 167 | if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:108:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN'
> 108 | DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN(ddev, ctx, 0, ret);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Out of curiosity: The top comment says there were two build errors (one on
exynos and another one on tegra), but there is only one reported bug (on msm).
Is this because the bot only reports the first error found? Is there a link to
a report with each of the build errors on each of the platforms?
Thanks.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@u92.eu>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sean@poorly.run,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/15] dmr/msm: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:25:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUj8RHdl7aIONPa0@zacax395.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202109200942.M3etmn3s-lkp@intel.com>
On 21/09/20 09:54AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on drm-exynos/exynos-drm-next]
> [also build test ERROR on tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.15-rc2 next-20210917]
I forgot to #include <drm/drm_drv.h> for those platforms and didn't notice
because I only tried to build for X86. I'll fix it.
> [cannot apply to drm-intel/for-linux-next tegra/for-next drm-tip/drm-tip airlied/drm-next]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base'.
I built this patch against drm-next, which currently points to v5.15-rc1.
Should I be targeting a different branch? In any case, as suggested, I'll
remember to use "--base" in the future to make it easier to apply. Thanks for
the hint.
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/drm/drm_crtc.h:36,
> from include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:31,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot.h:9,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:8:
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c: In function 'msm_disp_capture_atomic_state':
> >> include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h:167:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 167 | if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:108:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN'
> 108 | DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN(ddev, ctx, 0, ret);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Out of curiosity: The top comment says there were two build errors (one on
exynos and another one on tegra), but there is only one reported bug (on msm).
Is this because the bot only reports the first error found? Is there a link to
a report with each of the build errors on each of the platforms?
Thanks.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@u92.eu>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sean@poorly.run,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 03/15] dmr/msm: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:25:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUj8RHdl7aIONPa0@zacax395.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202109200942.M3etmn3s-lkp@intel.com>
On 21/09/20 09:54AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on drm-exynos/exynos-drm-next]
> [also build test ERROR on tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.15-rc2 next-20210917]
I forgot to #include <drm/drm_drv.h> for those platforms and didn't notice
because I only tried to build for X86. I'll fix it.
> [cannot apply to drm-intel/for-linux-next tegra/for-next drm-tip/drm-tip airlied/drm-next]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base'.
I built this patch against drm-next, which currently points to v5.15-rc1.
Should I be targeting a different branch? In any case, as suggested, I'll
remember to use "--base" in the future to make it easier to apply. Thanks for
the hint.
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/drm/drm_crtc.h:36,
> from include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:31,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot.h:9,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:8:
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c: In function 'msm_disp_capture_atomic_state':
> >> include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h:167:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 167 | if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:108:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN'
> 108 | DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN(ddev, ctx, 0, ret);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Out of curiosity: The top comment says there were two build errors (one on
exynos and another one on tegra), but there is only one reported bug (on msm).
Is this because the bot only reports the first error found? Is there a link to
a report with each of the build errors on each of the platforms?
Thanks.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@u92.eu>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dmr/msm: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:25:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUj8RHdl7aIONPa0@zacax395.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202109200942.M3etmn3s-lkp@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2137 bytes --]
On 21/09/20 09:54AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on drm-exynos/exynos-drm-next]
> [also build test ERROR on tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.15-rc2 next-20210917]
I forgot to #include <drm/drm_drv.h> for those platforms and didn't notice
because I only tried to build for X86. I'll fix it.
> [cannot apply to drm-intel/for-linux-next tegra/for-next drm-tip/drm-tip airlied/drm-next]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base'.
I built this patch against drm-next, which currently points to v5.15-rc1.
Should I be targeting a different branch? In any case, as suggested, I'll
remember to use "--base" in the future to make it easier to apply. Thanks for
the hint.
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/drm/drm_crtc.h:36,
> from include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:31,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot.h:9,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:8:
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c: In function 'msm_disp_capture_atomic_state':
> >> include/drm/drm_modeset_lock.h:167:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 167 | if (!drm_drv_uses_atomic_modeset(dev)) \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/msm_disp_snapshot_util.c:108:9: note: in expansion of macro 'DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN'
> 108 | DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN(ddev, ctx, 0, ret);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Out of curiosity: The top comment says there were two build errors (one on
exynos and another one on tegra), but there is only one reported bug (on msm).
Is this because the bot only reports the first error found? Is there a link to
a report with each of the build errors on each of the platforms?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-20 21:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 139+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-16 21:15 [PATCH 00/15] drm: cleanup: Use DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_* helpers where possible Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 01/15] dmr: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() --> DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN() Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:28 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:28 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:28 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:07 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:07 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:07 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 02/15] dmr/i915: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:31 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:31 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 03/15] dmr/msm: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:29 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:29 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-20 1:54 ` kernel test robot
2021-09-20 1:54 ` kernel test robot
2021-09-20 1:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " kernel test robot
2021-09-20 1:54 ` [Nouveau] " kernel test robot
2021-09-20 21:25 ` Fernando Ramos [this message]
2021-09-20 21:25 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-20 21:25 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-20 21:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 04/15] drm: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all() " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:35 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:35 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 05/15] drm/vmwgfx: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:37 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:37 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 06/15] drm/tegra: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:38 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:38 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:34 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:34 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 07/15] drm/shmobile: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:38 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:38 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 08/15] drm/radeon: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:40 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:40 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:32 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:32 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 09/15] drm/omapdrm: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:40 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:40 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:41 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:41 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:37 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:37 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 10/15] drm/nouveau: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:42 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:42 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 11/15] drm/msm: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:42 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:42 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:41 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:41 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 12/15] drm/i915: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:48 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:48 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 22:57 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:57 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 22:57 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 13/15] drm/gma500: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:49 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:49 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 14/15] drm/amd: " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:55 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:55 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:55 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 23:17 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 23:17 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 23:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-18 9:42 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-18 9:42 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-18 9:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [PATCH 15/15] doc: drm: remove TODO entry regarding DRM_MODSET_LOCK_ALL cleanup Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 21:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:56 ` Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 15:56 ` [Nouveau] " Sean Paul
2021-09-17 23:21 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 23:21 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 23:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-16 23:53 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm: cleanup: Use DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_* helpers where possible Patchwork
2021-09-17 6:19 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 15:24 ` [PATCH 00/15] " Daniel Vetter
2021-09-17 15:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2021-09-17 15:24 ` [Nouveau] " Daniel Vetter
2021-09-17 21:41 ` Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 21:41 ` [Nouveau] " Fernando Ramos
2021-09-17 21:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Fernando Ramos
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YUj8RHdl7aIONPa0@zacax395.localdomain \
--to=greenfoo@u92.eu \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sean@poorly.run \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.