this patch fixes below compilation error
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c: In
function ‘dcn10_apply_ctx_for_surface’:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c:2378:3:
error: implicit declaration of function ‘udelay’
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
udelay(underflow_check_delay_us);
Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
index d2352949..1ac9a4f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
*
*/
+#include <linux/delay.h>
#include "dm_services.h"
#include "core_types.h"
#include "resource.h"
--
2.7.4
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:34 PM Hariprasad Kelam
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> this patch fixes below compilation error
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c: In
> function ‘dcn10_apply_ctx_for_surface’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c:2378:3:
> error: implicit declaration of function ‘udelay’
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> udelay(underflow_check_delay_us);
>
> Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <[email protected]>
What branch is this patch based on?
Alex
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
> index d2352949..1ac9a4f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> *
> */
>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> #include "dm_services.h"
> #include "core_types.h"
> #include "resource.h"
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Hi Alex.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:34 PM Hariprasad Kelam
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > this patch fixes below compilation error
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c: In
> > function ‘dcn10_apply_ctx_for_surface’:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c:2378:3:
> > error: implicit declaration of function ‘udelay’
> > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > udelay(underflow_check_delay_us);
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <[email protected]>
Am I right in assuming you took this patch?
I expect that new code using udelay was added to the amd tree,
and when merged with drm-misc-next it failed, because drm-misc-next no
longer had drmP.h included so no implicit include of delay.h
The root cause was that my original patchset should have been based
on the amd tree, and applied there :-(
Sam
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:42 PM Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:34 PM Hariprasad Kelam
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > this patch fixes below compilation error
> > >
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c: In
> > > function ‘dcn10_apply_ctx_for_surface’:
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dcn10/dcn10_hw_sequencer.c:2378:3:
> > > error: implicit declaration of function ‘udelay’
> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > udelay(underflow_check_delay_us);
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <[email protected]>
>
> Am I right in assuming you took this patch?
>
> I expect that new code using udelay was added to the amd tree,
> and when merged with drm-misc-next it failed, because drm-misc-next no
> longer had drmP.h included so no implicit include of delay.h
>
> The root cause was that my original patchset should have been based
> on the amd tree, and applied there :-(
No worries. I've picked it up.
Alex