linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220405105319.2eb47e9d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:53:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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:     Juha-Pekka Heikkilä 
        <juha-pekka.heikkila@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
        Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@...el.com>,
        Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@...el.com>,
        Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@...labora.com>,
        Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@...el.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c

between commit:

  132aaaf01788 ("drm/i915: add needs_compact_pt flag")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  072ce4164f97 ("drm/i915/dg2: Tile 4 plane format support")
  412c942bdfae ("drm/i915/ats-m: add ATS-M platform info")

from the drm-intel tree.

I fixed it up (I think, 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
index c32c0c6661c8,8e321d300e0c..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
@@@ -1040,25 -1038,35 +1040,36 @@@ static const struct intel_device_info x
  	.require_force_probe = 1,
  };
  
+ #define DG2_FEATURES \
+ 	XE_HP_FEATURES, \
+ 	XE_HPM_FEATURES, \
+ 	DGFX_FEATURES, \
+ 	.graphics.rel = 55, \
+ 	.media.rel = 55, \
+ 	PLATFORM(INTEL_DG2), \
+ 	.has_4tile = 1, \
+ 	.has_64k_pages = 1, \
++	.needs_compact_pt = 1, \
+ 	.has_guc_deprivilege = 1, \
+ 	.platform_engine_mask = \
+ 		BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) | \
+ 		BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VECS1) | \
+ 		BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2)
+ 
  __maybe_unused
  static const struct intel_device_info dg2_info = {
- 	XE_HP_FEATURES,
- 	XE_HPM_FEATURES,
+ 	DG2_FEATURES,
  	XE_LPD_FEATURES,
- 	DGFX_FEATURES,
- 	.graphics.rel = 55,
- 	.media.rel = 55,
- 	PLATFORM(INTEL_DG2),
- 	.has_guc_deprivilege = 1,
- 	.has_64k_pages = 1,
- 	.needs_compact_pt = 1,
- 	.platform_engine_mask =
- 		BIT(RCS0) | BIT(BCS0) |
- 		BIT(VECS0) | BIT(VECS1) |
- 		BIT(VCS0) | BIT(VCS2),
- 	.require_force_probe = 1,
  	.display.cpu_transcoder_mask = BIT(TRANSCODER_A) | BIT(TRANSCODER_B) |
  			       BIT(TRANSCODER_C) | BIT(TRANSCODER_D),
+ 	.require_force_probe = 1,
+ };
+ 
+ __maybe_unused
+ static const struct intel_device_info ats_m_info = {
+ 	DG2_FEATURES,
+ 	.display = { 0 },
+ 	.require_force_probe = 1,
  };
  
  #undef PLATFORM

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped