linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-intel 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]

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:37:14 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Oded Gabbay
 <ogabbay@...nel.org>, Thomas Hellström
 <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, 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>
Cc: DRM XE List <intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Intel Graphics
 <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-intel tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h

between commits:

  ded402c7a044 ("drm/i915: move skl_preferred_vco_freq to display substruct")
  8219ab6d6f0d ("drm/i915: move max_dotclk_freq to display substruct")
  9aad73290686 ("drm/i915: move display_irqs_enabled to display substruct")
  f25ae90ff9c6 ("drm/i915: move de_irq_mask to display substruct")
  860cefce5ebe ("drm/i915: move pipestat_irq_mask to display substruct")

from the drm-intel tree and commit:

  070f8fd6c654 ("drm/xe: remove unused struct xe_device members")

from the drm-xe tree.

I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped