[Intel-gfx] Pushed atomic-pwm changes, had to manually resolve a conflict in drm-tip

[Intel-gfx] Pushed atomic-pwm changes, had to manually resolve a conflict in drm-tip

[Hans de Goede]

Hi All,

Note this is just FYI, in case I did anything wrong...

Now that it is finally fully acked up and has passed CI
I have pushed my atomic-pwm support for i915 series to
dinq.

This let to a conflict in drm-tip. The problem was that
in dinq prior to my push intel_panel.c had the following
around line 1942:

        level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
                             CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);

Where as Linus' master, and drm-tip also from some fixes
branch I assume, has:

        level = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
                             CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);

Notice the extra _ULL in Linus' master / some fixes
branch which is necessary because
pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) went from
returning an u32 to an u64 in 5.9.

My patch-set removes the lines with the
	DIV_ROUND_UP[_ULL] replacing them with a
call to pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle() which nicely
abstracts this away.

Resolving this was easy, I followed:
https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-tip.html#resolving-conflicts-when-rebuilding-drm-tip

And I believe I did everything right :)

Still I'm sending this email for 2 reasons:

1. In case I did anything wrong.
2. This will likely also cause a conflict in -next
    I guess, I hope this email will make resolving
    that easier.

Regards,

Hans

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