diff mbox series

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

Message ID 20221114102327.6d53341e@canb.auug.org.au
State New
Headers
Series linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with Linus' tree |

Commit Message

Stephen Rothwell Nov. 13, 2022, 11:23 p.m. UTC 
  Hi all,

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

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c

between commit:

  b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")

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.

Comments

Hans de Goede Nov. 14, 2022, 8:19 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi,

On 11/14/22 00:23, 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_backlight.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> 
> from the drm-intel tree.

This is weird, because the:

   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")

commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

Regards,

Hans
Jani Nikula Nov. 14, 2022, 10:10 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 00:23, 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_backlight.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>> 
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>> 
>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>> 
>> from the drm-intel tree.
>
> This is weird, because the:
>
>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>
> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?

That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

BR,
Jani.
Hans de Goede Nov. 14, 2022, 10:35 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi,

On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/14/22 00:23, 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_backlight.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>
>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>
>> This is weird, because the:
>>
>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>
>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> 
> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?

Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
4 weeks ago.

I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
it is released ?

Regards,

Hans
Jani Nikula Nov. 14, 2022, 11:02 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11/14/22 00:23, 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_backlight.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>>
>>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
>>>>
>>>> from the drm-intel tree.
>>>
>>> This is weird, because the:
>>>
>>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
>>>
>>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
>>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
>> 
>> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
>
> Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> 4 weeks ago.

Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.

> I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> it is released ?

The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
reporting issues we find in linux-next.)

That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
it's time to backmerge drm-next?


BR,
Jani.
Rodrigo Vivi Nov. 14, 2022, 7:29 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:02:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/14/22 11:10, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/14/22 00:23, 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_backlight.c
> >>>>
> >>>> between commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>>
> >>>> from Linus' tree and commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>   801543b2593b ("drm/i915: stop including i915_irq.h from i915_trace.h")
> >>>>
> >>>> from the drm-intel tree.
> >>>
> >>> This is weird, because the:
> >>>
> >>>    b1d36e73cc1c ("drm/i915: Don't register backlight when another backlight should be used (v2)")
> >>>
> >>> commit is in 6.1-rc1, so there can only be a conflict it 6.1-rc1 has not
> >>> been back-merged into drm-intel yet ?
> >> 
> >> That's the reason it *is* a conflict, right?
> >
> > Right what I was trying to say is that I am surprised that 6.1-rc1 has not
> > been back-merged into drm-intel yet even though it has been released
> > 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Right, -ENOCOFFEE at my end.
> 
> > I thought it was more or less standard process to backmerge rc1 soon after
> > it is released ?
> 
> The delay may be because v6.1-rc1 brought in more regressions for us
> than any other -rc1 in recent memory. Our CI's been suffering, and our
> folks have been spending a lot of time debugging, bisecting and
> reporting. (And before you ask, yes, we're going to be more proactive in
> reporting issues we find in linux-next.)
> 
> That said, Rodrigo's been in charge of drm-intel-next this cycle, maybe
> it's time to backmerge drm-next?

yeap, I'm on it...

> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c
index beba39a38c87,0438071f58cf..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.c