next-20160707 build: 1 failures 6 warnings (next-20160707)

next-20160707 build: 1 failures 6 warnings (next-20160707)

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:23:56AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:

Today's -next fails to build an arm64 allmodconfig due to:

> 	arm64-allmodconfig
> ../drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c:17:27: fatal error: asm/dma-iommu.h: No such file or directory

triggered by c51f43a9c171ea (iommu/rockchip: Enable Rockchip IOMMU on
ARM64) which enables the Rockchip IOMMU driver on ARM64 which lacks the
above header.  Either the use of the header needs to be removed or an
explicit ARM64 dependency added at the DRM level.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160707/bbf16e3b/attachment.sig>

next-20160707 build: 1 failures 6 warnings (next-20160707)

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:23:56AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Today's -next fails to build an arm64 allmodconfig due to:
>
>>       arm64-allmodconfig
>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_drv.c:17:27: fatal error: asm/dma-iommu.h: No such file or directory
>
> triggered by c51f43a9c171ea (iommu/rockchip: Enable Rockchip IOMMU on
> ARM64) which enables the Rockchip IOMMU driver on ARM64 which lacks the
> above header.  Either the use of the header needs to be removed or an
> explicit ARM64 dependency added at the DRM level.

Looks like next is missing the DRM side of the series, which makes the
driver in question not need this header anymore.

This is probably because we missed this hidden dependency and decided
to push the IOMMU part separately through the IOMMU tree. I guess we
can remove the offending patch from the IOMMU tree and let the DRM
tree include it based on a topic branch from Joerg.

Joerg, David, Mark Yao, what do you think?

Best regards,
Tomasz

next-20160707 build: 1 failures 6 warnings (next-20160707)

[Joerg Roedel]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:18:02PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> This is probably because we missed this hidden dependency and decided
> to push the IOMMU part separately through the IOMMU tree. I guess we
> can remove the offending patch from the IOMMU tree and let the DRM
> tree include it based on a topic branch from Joerg.
> 
> Joerg, David, Mark Yao, what do you think?

Will the DRM patches go upstream soon, or is there still discussion
around them? For now I am going to remove/revert that patch in my tree.


	Joerg

next-20160707 build: 1 failures 6 warnings (next-20160707)

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:32:37PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:18:02PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > This is probably because we missed this hidden dependency and decided
> > to push the IOMMU part separately through the IOMMU tree. I guess we
> > can remove the offending patch from the IOMMU tree and let the DRM
> > tree include it based on a topic branch from Joerg.
> > 
> > Joerg, David, Mark Yao, what do you think?
> 
> Will the DRM patches go upstream soon, or is there still discussion
> around them? For now I am going to remove/revert that patch in my tree.

drm is pretty much done for 4.8, but as usual there's some driver
maintainers who are rather late. I'd say unlikely it lands in 4.8,
postpone to 4.9 seems more reasonable given the trouble it just caused.
-Daniel

> 
> 
> 	Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch