Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for More preparation for multi gt patches

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Matt,

> The first 10 patches have gone through several clean CI cycles now, so
> I've pushed those to drm-intel-gt-next.  There are just a couple minor
> comments on the ggtt patches, so we can push the rest of those once the
> comments are addressed.
> 
> BTW, there's one i915->gt reference in the display code that has moved
> from display/intel_display.c to display/skl_universal_plane.c on
> drm-intel-next, but that movement hasn't made its way to
> drm-intel-gt-next yet.  This led to a merge conflict while rebuilding
> drm-tip.  I had to use a 'dim cat-to-fixup' to apply the following diff
> to the drm-intel-gt-next merge commit:
> 
>         diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_universal_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_universal_plane.c
>         index 158d89b8d490..b3162f49f341 100644
>         --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_universal_plane.c
>         +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/skl_universal_plane.c
>         @@ -1737,7 +1737,7 @@ static bool bo_has_valid_encryption(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>         {
>                 struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
> 
>         -       return intel_pxp_key_check(&i915->gt.pxp, obj, false) == 0;
>         +       return intel_pxp_key_check(&to_gt(i915)->pxp, obj, false) == 0;
>         }
> 
>         static bool pxp_is_borked(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)

thanks for pointing this out.

Andi