[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220224175147.2694056-1-broonie@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:51:47 +0000
From: broonie@...nel.org
To: 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: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@...el.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with the drm-intel-gt tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
between commit:
721fd84ea1fe9 ("drm/i915/pmu: Use PM timestamp instead of RING TIMESTAMP for reference")
from the drm-intel-gt tree and commit:
b3f74938d6566 ("drm/i915/pmu: Use PM timestamp instead of RING TIMESTAMP for reference")
from the drm-intel tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index 04b8321fc7587,b3a429a92c0da..0000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
[Used drm-next version]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists