Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:22:49 -0800 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL 2/3] ARM: SoC driver updates for 4.15 |
| |
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:31:47AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, Linus, > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> ARM: SoC driver updates for v4.15 > >> > >> No. This is completely broken, and I can't imagine that it has ever > >> compiled for *anybody*. > >> > >> drivers/soc/renesas/r8a77970-sysc.c:14:10: fatal error: > >> dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h: No such file or directory > >> #include <dt-bindings/power/r8a77970-sysc.h> > >> > >> and the compiler is completely right. This branch added that > >> r8a77970-sysc.c file, but never added the header file. > >> > >> And it's not some odd merge mistake of mine: I checked. That error is > >> there in the original branch too. > >> > >> Tssk. > > > > Right, I need to figure out how this could have slipped through. I did > > get several "BUILD SUCCESS" mails from the kbuild bot (see > > https://pastebin.com/JDw3EKDZ), which claims to have built it > > successfully in all configurations, including allmodconfig builds on > > arm/arm64 and x86-64. Fengguang, do you remember problems > > with false-negatives recently? > > > > I also did my own tests based on the "for-next" branch and looked > > at the kernelci results of that branch, but that didn't catch the > > mistake as the file in question was added in the third "dt" branch. > > > > The dt-bindings/ files have caused endless problems like this > > in the past, and I've been very careful about spotting missing > > changes when they happen in my next/dt branch and complained > > a lot whenever someone sent me crap that didn't compile because > > of that. Now I've fallen into the same trap in the opposite direction, > > when the patch was in next/dt but missing in next/drivers. > > What happened is that Simon queued up the header file in his > dt-bindings branch, without noticing it was needed by his drivers branch. > > The dt-bindings header files are sometimes needed by both the drivers > and dt branches, while policy requests they are in their own branch. > For the dt branch, the current trend is to break the dependency by hardcoding > the numbers in the DTS files initially, and replacing them by defines during > the next merge window. > For the drivers branch, it looks like dt-bindings/power/r8a779*-sysc.h header > files were just queued up in the drivers branch previously, together with the > drivers, avoiding the issue, but breaking the policy... > > Sorry for the mess. We'll be more careful.
I'm terribly sorry about this. We will be more careful in future.
| |