Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/imx: move 'legacyfb_depth' definition out of #ifdef | From | Noralf Trønnes <> | Date | Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:22:32 +0200 |
| |
Den 04.10.2018 21.35, skrev Daniel Vetter: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:04:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:43 PM Noralf Trønnes <noralf@tronnes.org> wrote: >>> Den 04.10.2018 09.48, skrev Daniel Vetter: >>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:51 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:49:32PM +0200, Noralf Trønnes wrote: >>>>>>> Den 02.10.2018 22.58, skrev Arnd Bergmann: >>>>>>>> The variable is now referenced unconditionally, but still >>>>>>>> declared in an #ifdef: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c: In function 'imx_drm_bind': >>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c:264:6: error: 'legacyfb_depth' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'lockdep_depth'? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remove the #ifdef so it can always be accessed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fixes: f53705fd9803 ("drm/imx: Use drm_fbdev_generic_setup()") >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> I've already applied the previous one you sent: >>>>>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/commit/?id=064b06bbf117f8b5e64a5143e970d5a1cf602fd6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure when it reaches linux-next now that we are past rc6. >>>>>> Only once we're past -rc1. >>>>> Can we revert f53705fd9803 in linux-next then to prevent the regression from >>>>> making it into 4.20? >>>> Probably simpler to cherry pick the fix from drm-misc-next to >>>> drm-misc-next-fixes. Noralf, can you pls do that? >>> Would this be the correct procudure: >>> >>> dim update-branches >>> dim create-workdir drm-misc-next-fixes >>> <build> >>> CONFIG_DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION=n >>> <build will break> >>> git cherry-pick 064b06bbf117f8b5e64a5143e970d5a1cf602fd6 >>> <build passes> >>> dim push-branch drm-misc-next-fixes >>> >>> I read that cherry picking creates a new commit with a new hash. >>> But since you ask me to do this, I assume git will handle this when >>> branches are merged? >> The git history will show both commit IDs, which is a bit ugly but >> ok if it's rare enough. There is a chance for creating a conflict if the >> backport changes context, or one branch contains extra changes >> that touch the same lines, but usually this is not a problem. > +1, and your recipe looks good too. drm-intel works entirely on these > cherry-picks, and we've done it a few times in drm-misc too. Having to > cherry-pick is one of the downsides of group maintainership, since you > really can't rebase trees at will. Definitely not the -next queue.
The patch is now in drm-misc-next-fixes. Thanks for helping me fix this fallout.
Noralf.
| |