All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
	Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>,
	"rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:23:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <520B4C76.8020900@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1974929.8mIZF44QnT@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 13/08/13 20:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:44:23 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Adding PowerPC list
>>>
>>> On 13/08/13 14:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:27:47 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>> d4e4ab86bcba5a72779c43dc1459f71fea3d89c8:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux 3.11-rc5 (2013-08-11 18:04:20 -0700)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_of_node
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> All error/warnings:
>>>>
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26:0, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> include/linux/of.h:269:28: error: conflicting types for
>>>> 'of_get_cpu_node'
>>>> extern struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu); ^ In file
>>>> included from include/linux/of.h:139:0, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h:47:21: note: previous declaration
>>>> of 'of_get_cpu_node' was here
>>>> struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu, unsigned int *thread);
>>>> ^ make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 make[2]:
>>>> Target `__build' not remade because of errors. make[1]: ***
>>>> [prepare0] Error 2 make[1]: Target `prepare' not remade because of
>>>> errors. make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be conflict in the new function "of_get_cpu_node" added.
>>> PowerPC also defines the same function name. Further microblaze and
>>> openrisc declares it(can be removed) but doesn't define it.
>>> To fix this:
>>> 1. I can rename the newly added function to something different like
>>>    `of_get_cpunode` or
>>> 2. If of_* namespace should be used by only OF/FDT and not by any
>>>    architecture specific code, then the arch specific version can be
>>>    renamed to some thing like arch_of_get_cpu_node.
>>>    Also most of the calls to arch specific function can be moved to
>>>    generic code.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> It is up to Rafael if he is willing/able to rebase his tree, but I
>> would drop this series until this is sorted out.
> 
> Yeah, I've just done that.
> 
Thanks Rafael, sorry for the trouble. I didn't expect of_* name-space to
be used in ARCH specific code.

>> I think the new common function should be and can be generalized to work for
>> powerpc.
>> It would need to make reg property optional and pass in the device
>> node to the arch specific function.
>>
>> A short term solution would be just to make the function "#ifndef CONFIG_PPC".
> 
> I wouldn't do that, it's almost guaranteed to be messy going forward.
> 
> I'd go for 1 above personally.

Even though it's easier approach, I would go for fixing PPC and converge
at generic of_get_cpu_node implementation if possible.

Regards,
Sudeep




WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:23:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <520B4C76.8020900@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1974929.8mIZF44QnT@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 13/08/13 20:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:44:23 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Adding PowerPC list
>>>
>>> On 13/08/13 14:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:27:47 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>> d4e4ab86bcba5a72779c43dc1459f71fea3d89c8:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux 3.11-rc5 (2013-08-11 18:04:20 -0700)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_of_node
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> All error/warnings:
>>>>
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26:0, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> include/linux/of.h:269:28: error: conflicting types for
>>>> 'of_get_cpu_node'
>>>> extern struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu); ^ In file
>>>> included from include/linux/of.h:139:0, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h:47:21: note: previous declaration
>>>> of 'of_get_cpu_node' was here
>>>> struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu, unsigned int *thread);
>>>> ^ make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 make[2]:
>>>> Target `__build' not remade because of errors. make[1]: ***
>>>> [prepare0] Error 2 make[1]: Target `prepare' not remade because of
>>>> errors. make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be conflict in the new function "of_get_cpu_node" added.
>>> PowerPC also defines the same function name. Further microblaze and
>>> openrisc declares it(can be removed) but doesn't define it.
>>> To fix this:
>>> 1. I can rename the newly added function to something different like
>>>    `of_get_cpunode` or
>>> 2. If of_* namespace should be used by only OF/FDT and not by any
>>>    architecture specific code, then the arch specific version can be
>>>    renamed to some thing like arch_of_get_cpu_node.
>>>    Also most of the calls to arch specific function can be moved to
>>>    generic code.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> It is up to Rafael if he is willing/able to rebase his tree, but I
>> would drop this series until this is sorted out.
>=20
> Yeah, I've just done that.
>=20
Thanks Rafael, sorry for the trouble. I didn't expect of_* name-space to
be used in ARCH specific code.

>> I think the new common function should be and can be generalized to work=
 for
>> powerpc.
>> It would need to make reg property optional and pass in the device
>> node to the arch specific function.
>>
>> A short term solution would be just to make the function "#ifndef CONFIG=
_PPC".
>=20
> I wouldn't do that, it's almost guaranteed to be messy going forward.
>=20
> I'd go for 1 above personally.

Even though it's easier approach, I would go for fixing PPC and converge
at generic of_get_cpu_node implementation if possible.

Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com (Sudeep KarkadaNagesha)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:23:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <520B4C76.8020900@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1974929.8mIZF44QnT@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 13/08/13 20:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:44:23 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>> <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Adding PowerPC list
>>>
>>> On 13/08/13 14:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 02:27:47 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>>>>> The following changes since commit
>>>>> d4e4ab86bcba5a72779c43dc1459f71fea3d89c8:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux 3.11-rc5 (2013-08-11 18:04:20 -0700)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>> git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpu_of_node
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> All error/warnings:
>>>>
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> warning: (MPC836x_RDK && MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC && MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM)
>>>> selects FSL_LBC which has unmet direct dependencies (FSL_SOC)
>>>> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26:0, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> include/linux/of.h:269:28: error: conflicting types for
>>>> 'of_get_cpu_node'
>>>> extern struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu); ^ In file
>>>> included from include/linux/of.h:139:0, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_para.h:26, from
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h:26, from include/linux/kvm_para.h:4,
>>>> from include/linux/kvm_host.h:30, from
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.c:53:
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h:47:21: note: previous declaration
>>>> of 'of_get_cpu_node' was here
>>>> struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu, unsigned int *thread);
>>>> ^ make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1 make[2]:
>>>> Target `__build' not remade because of errors. make[1]: ***
>>>> [prepare0] Error 2 make[1]: Target `prepare' not remade because of
>>>> errors. make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be conflict in the new function "of_get_cpu_node" added.
>>> PowerPC also defines the same function name. Further microblaze and
>>> openrisc declares it(can be removed) but doesn't define it.
>>> To fix this:
>>> 1. I can rename the newly added function to something different like
>>>    `of_get_cpunode` or
>>> 2. If of_* namespace should be used by only OF/FDT and not by any
>>>    architecture specific code, then the arch specific version can be
>>>    renamed to some thing like arch_of_get_cpu_node.
>>>    Also most of the calls to arch specific function can be moved to
>>>    generic code.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> It is up to Rafael if he is willing/able to rebase his tree, but I
>> would drop this series until this is sorted out.
> 
> Yeah, I've just done that.
> 
Thanks Rafael, sorry for the trouble. I didn't expect of_* name-space to
be used in ARCH specific code.

>> I think the new common function should be and can be generalized to work for
>> powerpc.
>> It would need to make reg property optional and pass in the device
>> node to the arch specific function.
>>
>> A short term solution would be just to make the function "#ifndef CONFIG_PPC".
> 
> I wouldn't do that, it's almost guaranteed to be messy going forward.
> 
> I'd go for 1 above personally.

Even though it's easier approach, I would go for fixing PPC and converge
at generic of_get_cpu_node implementation if possible.

Regards,
Sudeep

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-08-14  9:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-12 13:27 [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-12 13:27 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 13:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-13 13:00   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-13 15:40   ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 15:40     ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 15:40     ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 18:29     ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 18:29       ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 18:29       ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 21:07       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:07         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:07         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 10:01         ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 10:01           ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 10:01           ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 11:37           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 11:37             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 11:37             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 13:21             ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 13:21               ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 13:21               ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 22:57               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 22:57                 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 22:57                 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14 12:53           ` Rob Herring
2013-08-14 12:53             ` Rob Herring
2013-08-14 12:53             ` Rob Herring
2013-08-14 13:27             ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 13:27               ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14 13:27               ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 18:37     ` Michal Simek
2013-08-13 18:37       ` Michal Simek
2013-08-13 18:37       ` Michal Simek
2013-08-14  8:41       ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14  8:41         ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14  8:41         ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 18:44     ` Rob Herring
2013-08-13 18:44       ` Rob Herring
2013-08-13 18:44       ` Rob Herring
2013-08-13 19:45       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-13 19:45         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-13 19:45         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-13 21:09         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:09           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:09           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:09           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-14  9:23         ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha [this message]
2013-08-14  9:23           ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-14  9:23           ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-13 21:08       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:08         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:08         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:03     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:03       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-08-13 21:03       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-06 16:11 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-08 14:43 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-08 15:27   ` Rob Herring
2013-08-08 15:49     ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-12  8:54       ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-12  9:03         ` Viresh Kumar
2013-08-12 11:51           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-12 12:41             ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-08-12 13:13               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-12 13:06                 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=520B4C76.8020900@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
    --cc=robherring2@gmail.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.