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?
-Jeff
