Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the drm-misc tree

From: Chen-Yu Tsai
Date: Mon Mar 06 2017 - 22:59:48 EST


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 50480a78e282 ("drm: sun4i: use vblank hooks in struct drm_crtc_funcs")
>
> from the drm-misc tree and commit:
>
> 1c313a69e3ea ("drm/sun4i: Move layers from sun4i_drv to sun4i_crtc")
>
> from the sunxi 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/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> index 9ccf7c4deb6d,1ec5b825aa64..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_drv.c
> @@@ -20,10 -21,31 +21,8 @@@
> #include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
> #include <drm/drm_of.h>
>
> - #include "sun4i_crtc.h"
> #include "sun4i_drv.h"
> #include "sun4i_framebuffer.h"
> - #include "sun4i_layer.h"
> -#include "sun4i_tcon.h"
> -
> -static int sun4i_drv_enable_vblank(struct drm_device *drm, unsigned int pipe)
> -{
> - struct sun4i_drv *drv = drm->dev_private;
> - struct sun4i_tcon *tcon = drv->tcon;
> -
> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Enabling VBLANK on pipe %d\n", pipe);
> -
> - sun4i_tcon_enable_vblank(tcon, true);
> -
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static void sun4i_drv_disable_vblank(struct drm_device *drm, unsigned int pipe)
> -{
> - struct sun4i_drv *drv = drm->dev_private;
> - struct sun4i_tcon *tcon = drv->tcon;
> -
> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Disabling VBLANK on pipe %d\n", pipe);
> -
> - sun4i_tcon_enable_vblank(tcon, false);
> -}
>
> static const struct file_operations sun4i_drv_fops = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,

Thanks. This looks correct when combined with the fix you sent out.

Maxime, how would you like to handle this?

ChenYu