Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm: spear600: Add missing interrupt-parent of rtc

Olof Johansson
2018-01-12T21:50:13Z

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:23 AM, Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 11-01-18, 18:07, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:28:51AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>>> > The interrupt-parent of rtc was missing, add it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Fixes: 8113ba917dfa ("ARM: SPEAr: DT: Update device nodes")
>>>>>> > Cc: stable-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org # v3.8+
>>>>>> > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Applied to next/dt. Is stable really needed on this? It's been broken since
>>>>>> pretty much forever, and nobody has complained... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure. Just thought it may be useful for someone somewhere :)
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Left the tags there, but didn't merge into fixes since we're late
>>>> in -rc and this didn't seem critical at this time.
>>>
>>> My plan was to have these in the fixes branch in the hope of making
>>> it to a clean build for 4.15 after all, they fix warnings that got introduced
>>> by the updated dtc checks in 4.15-rc1.
>>>
>>> We are getting fairly close, but it seems we still miss a few, so we
>>> might as well give up at this point. The remaining fixes should be easy
>>> to backport into v4.15.y if we decide to do it, of further back even.
>>> For v4.14 and before, the in-kernel copy of dtc won't warn, but mainline
>>> dtc will.
>>>
>>> Greg, let me know your thoughts on this for the upcoming 4.15.y
>>> release. We had hundreds of dtc warnings in 4.15-rc1, many of them
>>> about important bugs, now we're down to a couple of warnings
>>> for platforms we don't care about much, and I expect the last of
>>> these fixes to land in 4.16-rc1 or maybe -rc2. Shall we backport
>>> them all to get a clean 4.15.y release?
>>
>> I think it makes more sense to disable the warnings than to backport a
>> bunch of warning fixes this late. The code is working, has worked for
>> a long time it's just that Rob enabled the warnings by default. We can
>> keep them enabled for 4.16.
>
> In some cases "working" was what's in the DT is unused by the kernel
> because the DT is broken. That's why this round was not off by
> default.
>
> It looks to me to be somewhere less than 5 fixes remaining (BTW, why
> is there no arm32 allmodconfig build on kernelci.org? That or
> allyesconfig are the only ways to build all dtbs). It would also be an
> exception to the the stable process because that patch would not be in
> Linus' tree.

I build them but my script that analyses for warnings only looks for
the gcc "warning:" output. Need to do grep -i to catch them.

FWIW, logs are here:

http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/mainline/v4.15-rc7-200-gc92a9a4/buildall.arm.allmodconfig.log.passed

>>> Note: there was at least one dtc warning fix that caused a serious
>>> regression in code that relied on a device probe to fail because of
>>> an invalid node (a fix is still in the works for 4.15), though generally
>>> the fixes are really harmless and can only make things better.
>>
>> Exactly why picking up warning fixes this late is probably not a great idea.
>
> Applying them now for 4.15 would be late, but tagging them as fixes in
> 4.16 would not be late (other than the normal problem that things get
> applied to stable before sufficient testing in master).
>
>
> I have more dtc checks in the works (nothing for 4.16 :) ). I'd like
> the process to work better. I'm not going to fix all the warnings. I
> don't think Arnd should either. Turning them off by default hasn't
> worked great either. For some, I'm not sure we can ever get to warning
> free, but I'd like new stuff to have warnings enabled and no one
> builds with W=1. We could put together tooling to just show new
> warnings, but someone has to run it and enforce it. I could stick dtc
> updates into linux-next for multiple cycles before sending to Linus.

I'll split up and report DT warnings separate from compiler, seems
like a reasonable approach.

-Olof