drm/xe: skip building debugfs code for CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n

  From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

Some of the debugfs functions are stubbed out in these configurations,
so trying to build the .c file with the definition fails:

In file included from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
                 from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:27:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c: At top level:
include/linux/stddef.h:8:16: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void'
    8 | #define NULL ((void *)0)
      |                ^~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:549:20: note: in expansion of macro 'intel_crtc_get_crc_sources'
  549 | const char *const *intel_crtc_get_crc_sources(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
      |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stop trying to build them by making the Makefile entries conditional,
same as for the i915 driver.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
  

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> Some of the debugfs functions are stubbed out in these configurations,
> so trying to build the .c file with the definition fails:
>
> In file included from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:27:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c: At top level:
> include/linux/stddef.h:8:16: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void'
>     8 | #define NULL ((void *)0)
>       |                ^~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:549:20: note: in expansion of macro 'intel_crtc_get_crc_sources'
>   549 | const char *const *intel_crtc_get_crc_sources(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Stop trying to build them by making the Makefile entries conditional,
> same as for the i915 driver.

Already fixed by commit 439987f6f471 ("drm/xe: don't build debugfs files
when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n") in drm-xe-next.

Maybe that needs to be picked up for -fixes?

BR,
Jani.

>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> index efcf0ab7a1a6..7c10ffdb7809 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> @@ -213,8 +213,6 @@ xe-$(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) += \
>  	i915-display/intel_ddi.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_ddi_buf_trans.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_display.o \
> -	i915-display/intel_display_debugfs.o \
> -	i915-display/intel_display_debugfs_params.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_display_device.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_display_driver.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_display_irq.o \
> @@ -258,7 +256,6 @@ xe-$(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) += \
>  	i915-display/intel_modeset_setup.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_modeset_verify.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_panel.o \
> -	i915-display/intel_pipe_crc.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_pmdemand.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_pps.o \
>  	i915-display/intel_psr.o \
> @@ -275,6 +272,13 @@ xe-$(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) += \
>  	i915-display/skl_universal_plane.o \
>  	i915-display/skl_watermark.o
>  
> +ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> +xe-$(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) += \
> +	i915-display/intel_display_debugfs.o \
> +	i915-display/intel_display_debugfs_params.o \
> +	i915-display/intel_pipe_crc.o
> +endif
> +
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_ACPI),y)
>  	xe-$(CONFIG_DRM_XE_DISPLAY) += \
>  		i915-display/intel_acpi.o \
  

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, at 15:55, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>
>> Some of the debugfs functions are stubbed out in these configurations,
>> so trying to build the .c file with the definition fails:
>>
>> In file included from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
>>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:27:
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c: At top level:
>> include/linux/stddef.h:8:16: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void'
>>     8 | #define NULL ((void *)0)
>>       |                ^~~~
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:549:20: note: in expansion of macro 'intel_crtc_get_crc_sources'
>>   549 | const char *const *intel_crtc_get_crc_sources(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Stop trying to build them by making the Makefile entries conditional,
>> same as for the i915 driver.
>
> Already fixed by commit 439987f6f471 ("drm/xe: don't build debugfs files
> when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n") in drm-xe-next.
>
> Maybe that needs to be picked up for -fixes?

I made sure that this still happens in linux-next today, but
it does not seem to contain 439987f6f471.

     Arnd
  

+Stephen

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, at 15:55, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>
>>> Some of the debugfs functions are stubbed out in these configurations,
>>> so trying to build the .c file with the definition fails:
>>>
>>> In file included from include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
>>>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:27:
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c: At top level:
>>> include/linux/stddef.h:8:16: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void'
>>>     8 | #define NULL ((void *)0)
>>>       |                ^~~~
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pipe_crc.c:549:20: note: in expansion of macro 'intel_crtc_get_crc_sources'
>>>   549 | const char *const *intel_crtc_get_crc_sources(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Stop trying to build them by making the Makefile entries conditional,
>>> same as for the i915 driver.
>>
>> Already fixed by commit 439987f6f471 ("drm/xe: don't build debugfs files
>> when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n") in drm-xe-next.
>>
>> Maybe that needs to be picked up for -fixes?
>
>I made sure that this still happens in linux-next today, but
>it does not seem to contain 439987f6f471.

Looking at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=2d5c7b7eb345249cb34d42cbc2b97b4c57ea944e
it seems we still don't have drm-xe-next branch in linux-next.

Stephen, could you please add it? Or do I have to do something on my end
before that?  This is the branch:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel drm-xe-next

thanks
Lucas De Marchi



>
>     Arnd
  

Hi Lucas,

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:29:54 -0600 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Looking at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=2d5c7b7eb345249cb34d42cbc2b97b4c57ea944e
> it seems we still don't have drm-xe-next branch in linux-next.
> 
> Stephen, could you please add it? Or do I have to do something on my end
> before that?  This is the branch:
> 
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel drm-xe-next

Added from tomorrow.  Currently the only contact is yourself.  Do you
want anyone else (or a mailing list) as well?

Do you want the drm-xe-fixes branch included as well?

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
you may know, this is not a judgement of your code.  The purpose of
linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
        Signed-off-by,
     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
     * successfully unit tested, and 
     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
  

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:21:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>Hi Lucas,
>
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:29:54 -0600 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Looking at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=2d5c7b7eb345249cb34d42cbc2b97b4c57ea944e
>> it seems we still don't have drm-xe-next branch in linux-next.
>>
>> Stephen, could you please add it? Or do I have to do something on my end
>> before that?  This is the branch:
>>
>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel drm-xe-next
>
>Added from tomorrow.  Currently the only contact is yourself.  Do you
>want anyone else (or a mailing list) as well?
>
>Do you want the drm-xe-fixes branch included as well?

I don't think it's needed since drm-xe-next covers what is in
drm-xe-fixes. Please add other maintainers and mailing list:

M:      Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>
M:      Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
L:      intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org

Looking at drm-intel and drm-misc, they are using a special
for-linux-next. We may eventually adopt the same workflow, but I will
have to check with other maintainers.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>
>Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
>you may know, this is not a judgement of your code.  The purpose of
>linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
>conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.
>
>You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
>been:
>     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
>        Signed-off-by,
>     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
>     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
>     * successfully unit tested, and
>     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
>
>Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
>to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
>
>-- 
>Cheers,
>Stephen Rothwell
>sfr@canb.auug.org.au
  

Hi Lucas,

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:45:35 -0600 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's needed since drm-xe-next covers what is in
> drm-xe-fixes. Please add other maintainers and mailing list:
> 
> M:      Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>
> M:      Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> L:      intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org

Added.
  

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
> Looking at drm-intel and drm-misc, they are using a special
> for-linux-next. We may eventually adopt the same workflow, but I will
> have to check with other maintainers.

The idea is to try to better reflect what's actually going to next. For
example, drm-intel-next starts targeting "next next" after about
-rc6. But we haven't properly automated the cutoff point, it only kicks
in at release. So there's still a window when linux-next sees "next
next" stuff that gets dropped. Using drm-xe-next directly makes for a
longer window.

BR,
Jani.