From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from madrid.collaboradmins.com (madrid.collaboradmins.com [46.235.227.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07AF5472A; Fri, 10 May 2024 13:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715348234; cv=none; b=XrP1/k+bm80sSrF3+zBXijSHNKOVZNGuTlR7i5x7RWXgpnrEUXWeqYXWGOROhZQSzB2+DP5ZMQJw/x1tx0nJO1TIFhIH4mje78pBDVE7/6L1mmB0kxLY7t/FKHlFiO94Eo0z0CcydMGe7PPqv7c2+sJ3zu0Dk/O/slOCafptNDU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715348234; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3Jq1Hi7P/s1vouFwybYjISD8sE06aiZGtuaccX8h5E4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NiGljH7inV01u/dGb4lOF3OwFyTwjnF94N2PGMOGAJOJc1+AfvO6y600qkBNf6CvBEp1w3jsnc0vXLTFrHcu9GtRa44eeNFMlfcjuWlrbE+g6V3MFPKdYWQaz77be5tZ05sCOyuCeRglVp70d9s77uYKJ7S8Qt5z/Uh+Q0L7OQY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=y6ng1k1C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="y6ng1k1C" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1715348230; bh=3Jq1Hi7P/s1vouFwybYjISD8sE06aiZGtuaccX8h5E4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=y6ng1k1CJmLR2SuMPRKqpljD80OMMjZpbOloF8AOvEl6Eq1ivcCRtNcDPEgbdM9Vq YwryKLfdKhALR7DVA11jzg++215zWNssyG6VMw7lS0npoakBNJ/HBHYBLrMv3chicy JYvp4xYEaQheUuoDfOO9DZsL/rshooJcjEgmB3mYH0RiMwEM2cHpDxY5i0L4Zv3fV4 7UiREiX6GLNcczr0CBuKCByAs3ifsG+xgndnrFzFrYekFEXJpI5kKquAtkb3BTEc/O BXmJjaPFg2Gd9taG3Uhyw89Givq1kQxjTYjQUYX/J4qQEL0Mr5+5II7ULDYrOYnH1F J5pdV33EB+QoA== Received: from [100.95.196.25] (cola.collaboradmins.com [195.201.22.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: koike) by madrid.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCA413781183; Fri, 10 May 2024 13:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 10:37:03 -0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ci: validate drm/msm XML register files against schema To: Abhinav Kumar , Dmitry Baryshkov Cc: Rob Clark , Sean Paul , Marijn Suijten , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240503-fd-fix-lxml-v2-0-f80a60ce21a1@linaro.org> <20240503-fd-fix-lxml-v2-2-f80a60ce21a1@linaro.org> <69b593b7-109c-825f-3dbb-5e8cce63ff01@quicinc.com> <24fb0b07-af03-1341-d98c-46f4f167fbbb@quicinc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Helen Koike In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 03/05/2024 21:07, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 5/3/2024 5:02 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Sat, 4 May 2024 at 01:38, Abhinav Kumar >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/3/2024 1:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 22:42, Abhinav Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/3/2024 11:15 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> In order to validate drm/msm register definition files against >>>>>> schema, >>>>>> reuse the nodebugfs build step. The validation entry is guarded by >>>>>> the EXPERT Kconfig option and we don't want to enable that option for >>>>>> all the builds. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov >>>>>> --- >>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh  | 3 +++ >>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml | 1 + >>>>>>     2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh >>>>>> index 106f2d40d222..28a495c0c39c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh >>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ rm -rf .git/rebase-apply >>>>>>     apt-get update >>>>>>     apt-get install -y libssl-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> +# for msm header validation >>>>>> +apt-get install -y python3-lxml >>>>>> + >>>>>>     if [[ "$KERNEL_ARCH" = "arm64" ]]; then >>>>>>         GCC_ARCH="aarch64-linux-gnu" >>>>>>         DEBIAN_ARCH="arm64" >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml >>>>>> index 17ab38304885..9c198239033d 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml >>>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ build-nodebugfs:arm64: >>>>>>       extends: .build:arm64 >>>>>>       variables: >>>>>>         DISABLE_KCONFIGS: "DEBUG_FS" >>>>>> +    ENABLE_KCONFIGS: "EXPERT DRM_MSM_VALIDATE_XML" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldnt this end up enabling DRM_MSM_VALIDATE_XML for any arm64 >>>>> device. >>>>> >>>>> Cant we make this build rule msm specific? >>>> >>>> No need to. We just need to validate the files at least once during >>>> the whole pipeline build. >>>> >>> >>> ah okay, today the arm64 config anyway sets all arm64 vendor drm configs >>> to y. >>> >>> A couple of more questions: >>> >>> 1) Why is this enabled only for no-debugfs option? >>> 2) Will there be any concerns from other vendors to enable CONFIG_EXPERT >>> in their CI runs as the arm64 config is shared across all arm64 vendors. >> >> I don't get the second question. This option is only enabled for >> no-debugfs, which isn't used for execution. >> > > Ah I see, makes sense. > >> I didn't want to add an extra build stage, just for the sake of >> validating regs against the schema, nor did I want EXPERT to find its >> way into the actual running kernels. >> > > This answered my second question actually. That basically I didnt also > want EXPERT to find its way into actual running kernels. > > Hence, I am fine with this change now > > Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar > > But, I will wait to hear from helen, vignesh about what they think of this. lgfm Acked-by: Helen Koike Thanks Helen