On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 06:24:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:34:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert. > > > That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm? > > > > According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction > > with the PowerPC tree. > > So this revert was supposed to fix this: 56e51681246e ("drm/ttm: revert > "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"") > > If there's anything left then I need to chase that asap since the merge > window will open soon. I think we are talking about two different issues here. My issue is not a compilation failure, it is an incorrect merge resolution that is happening in -next because of two independent changes in the drm and powerpc tree, the thread below should have more information. https://lore.kernel.org/20230413184725.GA3183133@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/ I do not think this is something that either tree can solve independently of each other, -next has to resolve the conflict correctly (which is what I point out in the message above) and a note of it should be passed along to Linus so it can be resolved correctly in mainline when the time comes. Cheers, Nathan