On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 06:23:59AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:10:26AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:49:52PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > >> dg1_gt_workarounds_init() is only ever called for DG1, so there is no > >> point checking it again. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demar...@intel.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c | 12 +++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c > >> index 32aa1647721a..eb6cc4867d67 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_workarounds.c > >> @@ -1472,21 +1472,15 @@ gen12_gt_workarounds_init(struct intel_gt *gt, > >> struct i915_wa_list *wal) > >> static void > >> dg1_gt_workarounds_init(struct intel_gt *gt, struct i915_wa_list *wal) > >> { > >> - struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915; > >> - > > > >Looks like you pushed some stale version of this patch which > >didn't remove this variable. Now the CONFIG_DRM_I915_WERROR=y > >build is broken. > > > >Did you lose that from your pre-push build .config? > > no, looks like a conflict between drm-intel-gt-next and drm-intel-next > > 69ea87e1591a ("drm/i915/dg1: Drop support for pre-production steppings") > merged in drm-intel-next dropped the only user. > > This patch was merged in drm-intel-gt-next and I didn't realize the > race was with the other branch rather than with the same branch due to > taking a long time for me to apply. Let me rebuild drm-tip to fix it up.
I already fixed it. Just forgot to note that here. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel