On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 06:24:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:34:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > Note there was a ppc compile fail, which is why we pushed the ttm revert.
> > > That /should/ be fixed now, but would be good if you can confirm?
> >
> > According to Nathan (CCed) there's still issues with the interaction
> > with the PowerPC tree.
>
> So this revert was supposed to fix this: 56e51681246e ("drm/ttm: revert
> "Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages"")
>
> If there's anything left then I need to chase that asap since the merge
> window will open soon.
I think we are talking about two different issues here. My issue is not
a compilation failure, it is an incorrect merge resolution that is
happening in -next because of two independent changes in the drm and
powerpc tree, the thread below should have more information.
https://lore.kernel.org/20230413184725.GA3183133@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
I do not think this is something that either tree can solve
independently of each other, -next has to resolve the conflict correctly
(which is what I point out in the message above) and a note of it should
be passed along to Linus so it can be resolved correctly in mainline
when the time comes.
Cheers,
Nathan
