On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 03:27:17PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:57:34PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:23:29PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > drm_dp_atomic_find_vcpi_slots no longer exists and needs
> > > to be used as drm_dp_atomic_find_time_slots.
> > > Also rename the function itself.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Fixes: 7ae5ab441402 ("Extract drm_dp_atomic_find_vcpi_slots cycle to separate function")
> >
> > The problem only exists in drm-tip. You need to revert the
> > bad merge from rerere-cache and redo it.
> >
> > And please always test build drm-tip after solving merge conflicts!
>
> I would really like to figure out how it did end like that.
>
> Here is the sequence of what I've been doing:
>
> 1) There was a series supposed to be merged which had this new
> change already in place i.e using drm_dp_atomic_find_time_slots.
> 2) Then using dim tools I started pushing according to workflow:
> a) dim update-branches
> b) dim checkout drm-intel-next
> c) wget those series mbox and run dim apply-branch drm-intel-next
> Got conflict: it was complaining about those changes around
> drm_dp_atomic_find_time_slots and after some checking I figured
> out that drm_dp_atomic_find_time_slots doesn't exist anymore.
> Here probably was my bad, as I wrongly assumed that those changes
> were probably reverted as it was also mentioned, that there was
> regression because of those.
>
> So I resolved this conflict by putting drm_dp_atomic_find_vcpi_slots
> back instead of drm_dp_atomic_find_time_slots _and_ actually
> built it even.
>
> d) I run dim push-branch drm-intel-next, it did complain about merge
> conflict again with drm-intel-next which I fixed and results were
> pushed.
> I should have build at this moment as well probably.
Yes. You didn't resolve the conflict correctly, thus the build failure.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
