On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 00:51, Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/24/2022 2:40 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:15 AM Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +struct msm_display_info {
> >> + int intf_type;
> >> + uint32_t capabilities;
> >> + uint32_t num_of_h_tiles;
> >> + uint32_t h_tile_instance[MAX_H_TILES_PER_DISPLAY];
> >> + bool is_te_using_watchdog_timer;
> > ...but then when you "move" the structure to its new location, which
> > should be a noop, then <poof> the "dsc" variable vanishes (along with
> > the kernel doc description of it before the structure).
>
> Sorry, i did not resolve the conflicts correctly when i cherry-pick
> them to msm-next tree.
>
> Will fix them.
I would strongly suggest doing development on top of msm/next or
linux-next. Using any other tree results in lots of problems starting
from the lame Fixes tags that we have been constantly seeing for the
last few months, conflicts when the patch is being rebased or
cherry-picked and ending up with the patches not being tested with the
tree that they are being applied to.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
