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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:22:06 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Cc:     Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

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