Hi Dave,
Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
between commit:
6f00975c6190 ("drm: Reject page_flip for !DRIVER_MODESET")
from Linus' tree and commit:
f837297ad824 ("drm: Add DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_TARGET_ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE flags v2")
from the drm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
index ddebe54cd5ca,a33dab27bb0d..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c
@@@ -5402,13 -1915,19 +1915,22 @@@ int drm_mode_page_flip_ioctl(struct drm
struct drm_crtc *crtc;
struct drm_framebuffer *fb = NULL;
struct drm_pending_vblank_event *e = NULL;
+ u32 target_vblank = page_flip->sequence;
int ret = -EINVAL;
+ if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
- if (page_flip->flags & ~DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_FLAGS ||
- page_flip->reserved != 0)
+ if (page_flip->flags & ~DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_FLAGS)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (page_flip->sequence != 0 && !(page_flip->flags & DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_TARGET))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* Only one of the DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_TARGET_ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE flags
+ * can be specified
+ */
+ if ((page_flip->flags & DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_TARGET) == DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_TARGET)
return -EINVAL;
if ((page_flip->flags & DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_ASYNC) && !dev->mode_config.async_page_flip)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
