On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 19:37, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2021-06-11 14:13:02) > > Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2021-06-11 13:40:56) > > > Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2021-06-11 12:27:15) > > > > Pull request for drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. > > > > > > > > topic/i915-ttm-2021-06-11: > > > > drm-misc and drm-intel pull request for topic/i915-ttm: > > > > - Convert i915 lmem handling to ttm. > > > > - Add a patch to temporarily add a driver_private member to vma_node. > > > > - Use this to allow mixed object mmap handling for i915. > > > > The following changes since commit 1bd8a7dc28c1c410f1ceefae1f2a97c06d1a67c2: > > > > > > > > Merge tag 'exynos-drm-next-for-v5.14' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/daeinki/drm-exynos into drm-next (2021-06-11 14:19:12 +1000) > > > > > > This base is not in drm-misc-next or drm-intel-gt-next, so effectively > > > we would end up pulling 478 extra commits from drm-next as a result. And > > > also causing all the warnings for those commits. I don't think we should > > > do that? > > > > > > The common ancestor would be ccd1950c2f7e38ae45aeefb99a08b39407cd6c63 > > > "Merge tag 'drm-intel-gt-next-2021-05-28' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-intel into drm-next" > > > Should we re-do the topic branch based on that? > > > > This problem seems to come from the fact that only the PR from yesterday > > that got merged to drm-next had the dependency patches. The previous > > backmerge of drm-next was requested too early. > > > > I've solved this with least hassle by backmerging drm-next again and > > then applying the PR to drm-intel-gt-next. > > And now I have actually pushed the merge too.. Thanks to Tvrtko > for pointing out broken drm-tip. > Sorry I messed up, I missed the tip fail in my terminal before I clocked off. Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
