On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> CC sfr
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:44 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 11:13, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:31 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 15:37:04 +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > While working on the generic mode_valid() implementation for the HDMI
> > > > > Connector framework I noticed that unlike other DRM objects
> > > > > drm_connector accepts non-const pointer to struct drm_display_mode,
> > > > > while obviously mode_valid() isn't expected to modify the argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mass-change the DRM framework code to pass const argument to that
> > > > > callback.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Applied to drm-misc-next, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > [1/5] drm/encoder_slave: make mode_valid accept const struct drm_display_mode
> > > > commit: 7a5cd45fab0a2671aa4ea6d8fb80cea268387176
> > > > [2/5] drm/amdgpu: don't change mode in amdgpu_dm_connector_mode_valid()
> > > > commit: b255ce4388e09f14311e7912d0ccd45a14a08d66
> > > > [3/5] drm/sti: hda: pass const struct drm_display_mode* to hda_get_mode_idx()
> > > > commit: 5f011b442006ccb29044263df10843de80fc0b14
> > > > [4/5] drm/connector: make mode_valid_ctx take a const struct drm_display_mode
> > > > commit: 66df9debcb29d14802912ed79a9cf9ba721b51a4
> > > > [5/5] drm/connector: make mode_valid take a const struct drm_display_mode
> > > > commit: 26d6fd81916e62d2b0568d9756e5f9c33f0f9b7a
> > >
> > > I cannot find these in drm-misc or drm-next, but they are in drm-tip?
> >
> > These are in drm-misc/drm-misc-next, the commit IDs are a part of the
> > Git history.
> >
> > > The last one due to commit 2bdc721917cf141f ("Merge remote-tracking
> > > branch 'drm-misc/drm-misc-next' into drm-tip").
> > >
> > > What am I missing?
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > It might be some kind of misinteraction between drm-misc-next vs
> > drm-misc-next-fixes vs merge window. Let me recheck dim rebuild-tip.
>
> I indeed see the commit in
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel/-/blob/drm-misc-next/include/drm/drm_modeset_helper_vtables.h?ref_type=heads
>
> [diving deeper]
>
> So I missed the change from the for-linux-next to the drm-misc-next
> branch. Hence I fetched only the former, and was using a stale
> version of the latter.
>
> Apparently Stephen is also using the old branches for linux-next:
>
> drm-misc-fixes git
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel.git#for-linux-next-fixes
> drm-misc git
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel.git#for-linux-next
>
> I believe the latter should be drm-misc-next.
> Should the former be drm-misc-fixes or drm-misc-next-fixes? Or both?
No. Both branches are correct. This is how the drm-misc tree managed
development process: during the merge window (and several preceeding
weeks) the drm-misc-next branch is open for the commits. However those
commits are not targeted the forthcoming -rc1. Thus the for-linux-next
branch is diverted to point to drm-misc-next-fixes. This is all being by
the dim tool.
Respective mode_valid changes were applied too late in the cycle, so
they are not going to land into 6.14-rc1 (and are not a part of the
for-linux-next branch). Once 6.14-rc1 is released and we start working
towards 6.15, for-linux-next will again point to drm-misc-next.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
