linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-fixes tree

[Mark Brown]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the drm-xe tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c

between commit:

  e23fafb8594ea ("drm/xe/rtp: Add struct types for RTP tables")

from the drm-fixes tree and commits:

  5ff004fdc7377 ("drm/xe/rtp: Add struct types for RTP tables")
  c47ffed42b016 ("drm/xe/rtp: Add kunit tests to exercise FIELD_SET_FUNC action")

from the drm-xe 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.

diff --combined drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
index 3d0688d058d97,367811621880f..0000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
@@@ -280,6 -280,11 +280,11 @@@ static void xe_rtp_rules_tests(struct k
  	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, err, param->expected_err);
  }
  
+ static u32 bits_2_3_set(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_hw_engine *hwe)
+ {
+ 	return REG_BIT(2) | REG_BIT(3);
+ }
+ 
  static const struct rtp_to_sr_test_case rtp_to_sr_cases[] = {
  	{
  		.name = "coalesce-same-reg",
@@@ -300,6 -305,29 +305,29 @@@
  			},
  		),
  	},
+ 	{
+ 		.name = "coalesce-same-reg-literal-and-func",
+ 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
+ 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2) | REG_BIT(3),
+ 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2) | REG_BIT(3),
+ 		.expected_active = BIT(0) | BIT(1),
+ 		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
+ 		/* Different bits on the same register: create a single entry */
+ 		.table = XE_RTP_TABLE_SR(
+ 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
+ 			  XE_RTP_RULES(FUNC(match_yes)),
+ 			  XE_RTP_ACTIONS(FIELD_SET(REGULAR_REG1,
+ 						   REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1),
+ 						   REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1)))
+ 			},
+ 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-2"),
+ 			  XE_RTP_RULES(FUNC(match_yes)),
+ 			  XE_RTP_ACTIONS(FIELD_SET_FUNC(REGULAR_REG1,
+ 							REG_BIT(2) | REG_BIT(3),
+ 							bits_2_3_set))
+ 			},
+ 		),
+ 	},
  	{
  		.name = "no-match-no-add",
  		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
@@@ -417,6 -445,30 +445,30 @@@
  			},
  		),
  	},
+ 	{
+ 		.name = "conflict-not-disjoint-literal-and-func",
+ 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
+ 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2),
+ 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2),
+ 		.expected_active = BIT(0) | BIT(1),
+ 		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
+ 		.expected_sr_errors = 1,
+ 		.table = XE_RTP_TABLE_SR(
+ 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
+ 			  XE_RTP_RULES(FUNC(match_yes)),
+ 			  XE_RTP_ACTIONS(FIELD_SET(REGULAR_REG1,
+ 						   REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2),
+ 						   REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2)))
+ 			},
+ 			/* drop: bits are not disjoint with previous entries */
+ 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-2"),
+ 			  XE_RTP_RULES(FUNC(match_yes)),
+ 			  XE_RTP_ACTIONS(FIELD_SET_FUNC(REGULAR_REG1,
+ 							REG_BIT(2) | REG_BIT(3),
+ 							bits_2_3_set))
+ 			},
+ 		),
+ 	},
  	{
  		.name = "conflict-reg-type",
  		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature