On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:47:11AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> CC Dmitry
>
> Hi Rodrigo
>
> On 2/23/2024 9:00 AM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > With the x86_64_defconfig I see the following when building drm-misc-next:
> > >
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_crt.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cx0_phy.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi_buf_trans.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dkl_phy.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux_backlight.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_hdcp.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_link_training.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_mst.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_dcs_backlight.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dvo.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_gmbus.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lspcon.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lvds.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.o
> > > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.o
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c: In function
> > > ‘intel_write_dp_vsc_sdp’:
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c:4232:15: error: implicit declaration
> > > of function ‘intel_dp_vsc_sdp_pack’; did you mean ‘drm_dp_vsc_sdp_pack’?
> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > 4232 | len = intel_dp_vsc_sdp_pack(vsc, &sdp, sizeof(sdp));
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > | drm_dp_vsc_sdp_pack
> > >
> > > Is this a known issue?
> >
> > o.O - what a mistery!
> >
> > it looks that drm-misc-next has only part of the patch:
> > 31a5b6ed88c7 ("drm/i915/display: Unify VSC SPD preparation")
> >
> > without the patch itself...
> >
> > I couldn't even trace back to understand how the declaration is
> > gone from the drm-misc-next...
> >
>
> Looks like the issue here is that the below patch which landed in
> drm-misc-next
>
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/579128/?series=130145&rev=1
>
> was based on top of drm-tip because the intel CI runs on drm-tip and not
> drm-misc-next.
>
> But, https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/572622/ is not present in
> drm-misc-next.
>
> Hence this broke the compilation.
>
> How would you prefer to fix this? We revert
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/130145/ from drm-misc and land it
> through i915 tree and can you provide us a tag from the i915 tree to rebase
> our msm-next tree on?
The revert from drm-misc is a possibility, then you squash
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240223191548.392185-1-rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx/
in and merge it again.
or if drm-misc and drm maintainers are okay we can simply add
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240223191548.392185-1-rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx/
on top of drm-misc-next
and on any conflict later the resolution is simply deleting this line
anyway.
>
> > >
> > > -Jeff
