Hi Lucas,
I encountered this build issue as well. I submitted a fix for drm-tip.
Oak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Lucas
> De Marchi
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 5:23 PM
> To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx; michel.daenzer@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> nouveau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christian König
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx>; zackr@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/ttm: replace busy placement with flags v6
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:16:58PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >>
> >>On 1/17/24 13:27, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On 1/17/24 11:47, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >>>>Hi, Christian
> >>>>
> >>>>Xe changes look good. Will send the series to xe ci to check for
> >>>>regressions.
> >>>
> >>>Hmm, there are some checkpatch warnings about author / SOB email
> >>>mismatch,
> >>
> >>With those fixed, this patch is
> >>
> >>Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >it actually broke drm-tip now that this is merged:
> >
> >../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:10: error: ‘struct ttm_placement’ has no
> member named ‘num_busy_placement’; did you mean ‘num_placement’
> > 41 | .num_busy_placement = 1,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > | num_placement
> >../drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:41:31: error: excess elements in struct initializer
> [-Werror]
> > 41 | .num_busy_placement = 1,
> > | ^
> >
> >
> >Apparently a conflict with another patch that got applied a few days
> >ago: a201c6ee37d6 ("drm/xe/bo: Evict VRAM to TT rather than to system")
>
> oh, no... apparently that commit is from a long time ago. The problem
> was that drm-misc-next was not yet in sync with drm-next. Thomas, do you
> have a fixup for this to put in rerere?
>
> Lucas De Marchi
