lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:19    [W:0.070 / U:9.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site