Re: [PATCH] drm/imx: move 'legacyfb_depth' definition out of #ifdef

["Noralf Trønnes" <noralf@tronnes.org>]

Den 04.10.2018 21.35, skrev Daniel Vetter:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:04:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:43 PM Noralf Trønnes <noralf@tronnes.org> wrote:
>>> Den 04.10.2018 09.48, skrev Daniel Vetter:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:51 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:49:32PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>>>>>>> Den 02.10.2018 22.58, skrev Arnd Bergmann:
>>>>>>>> The variable is now referenced unconditionally, but still
>>>>>>>> declared in an #ifdef:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c: In function 'imx_drm_bind':
>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c:264:6: error: 'legacyfb_depth' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'lockdep_depth'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remove the #ifdef so it can always be accessed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: f53705fd9803 ("drm/imx: Use drm_fbdev_generic_setup()")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> I've already applied the previous one you sent:
>>>>>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/commit/?id=064b06bbf117f8b5e64a5143e970d5a1cf602fd6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure when it reaches linux-next now that we are past rc6.
>>>>>> Only once we're past -rc1.
>>>>> Can we revert f53705fd9803 in linux-next then to prevent the regression from
>>>>> making it into 4.20?
>>>> Probably simpler to cherry pick the fix from drm-misc-next to
>>>> drm-misc-next-fixes. Noralf, can you pls do that?
>>> Would this be the correct procudure:
>>>
>>>       dim update-branches
>>>       dim create-workdir drm-misc-next-fixes
>>>       <build>
>>>       CONFIG_DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION=n
>>>       <build will break>
>>>       git cherry-pick 064b06bbf117f8b5e64a5143e970d5a1cf602fd6
>>>       <build passes>
>>>       dim push-branch drm-misc-next-fixes
>>>
>>> I read that cherry picking creates a new commit with a new hash.
>>> But since you ask me to do this, I assume git will handle this when
>>> branches are merged?
>> The git history will show both commit IDs, which is a bit ugly but
>> ok if it's rare enough. There is a chance for creating a conflict if the
>> backport changes context, or one branch contains extra changes
>> that touch the same lines, but usually this is not a problem.
> +1, and your recipe looks good too. drm-intel works entirely on these
> cherry-picks, and we've done it a few times in drm-misc too. Having to
> cherry-pick is one of the downsides of group maintainership, since you
> really can't rebase trees at will. Definitely not the -next queue.

The patch is now in drm-misc-next-fixes.
Thanks for helping me fix this fallout.

Noralf.