On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 19:37, Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com wrote:
Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2021-06-11 14:13:02)
Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2021-06-11 13:40:56)
Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2021-06-11 12:27:15)
Pull request for drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next.
topic/i915-ttm-2021-06-11: drm-misc and drm-intel pull request for topic/i915-ttm:
- Convert i915 lmem handling to ttm.
- Add a patch to temporarily add a driver_private member to vma_node.
- Use this to allow mixed object mmap handling for i915.
The following changes since commit 1bd8a7dc28c1c410f1ceefae1f2a97c06d1a67c2:
Merge tag 'exynos-drm-next-for-v5.14' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos into drm-next (2021-06-11 14:19:12 +1000)
This base is not in drm-misc-next or drm-intel-gt-next, so effectively we would end up pulling 478 extra commits from drm-next as a result. And also causing all the warnings for those commits. I don't think we should do that?
The common ancestor would be ccd1950c2f7e38ae45aeefb99a08b39407cd6c63 "Merge tag 'drm-intel-gt-next-2021-05-28' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-intel into drm-next" Should we re-do the topic branch based on that?
This problem seems to come from the fact that only the PR from yesterday that got merged to drm-next had the dependency patches. The previous backmerge of drm-next was requested too early.
I've solved this with least hassle by backmerging drm-next again and then applying the PR to drm-intel-gt-next.
And now I have actually pushed the merge too.. Thanks to Tvrtko for pointing out broken drm-tip.
Sorry I messed up, I missed the tip fail in my terminal before I clocked off.
Dave.