Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

[Jason Gerecke]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on wsa/i2c/for-next]
> [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.19-rc7 next-20220718]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
>
> url:
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git
> i2c/for-next
> config: hexagon-randconfig-r026-20220718
> (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220719/202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> d74b88c69dc2644bd0dc5d64e2d7413a0d4040e5)
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
>          wget
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross
> -O ~/bin/make.cross
>          chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
>          #
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
>          git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
>          git fetch --no-tags linux-review
> Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
>          git checkout 9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
>          # save the config file
>          mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
>          COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
> O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iio/adc/
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1645:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, const char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
>                     st->send = i2c_master_send;
>                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1646:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
>                     st->recv = i2c_master_recv;
>                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     2 errors generated.

Wolfram and Jonathan,

Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

[Jason Gerecke]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on wsa/i2c/for-next]
> > [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.19-rc7 next-20220718]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git
> > i2c/for-next
> > config: hexagon-randconfig-r026-20220718
> > (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220719/202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> > d74b88c69dc2644bd0dc5d64e2d7413a0d4040e5)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> >          wget
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross
> > -O ~/bin/make.cross
> >          chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> >          #
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> >          git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
> >          git fetch --no-tags linux-review
> > Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> >          git checkout 9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> >          # save the config file
> >          mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
> >          COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
> > O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iio/adc/
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1645:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, const char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> >                     st->send = i2c_master_send;
> >                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1646:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> >                     st->recv = i2c_master_recv;
> >                              ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >     2 errors generated.
>
> Wolfram and Jonathan,
>
> Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?

It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
best address this tangle...

Jason

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:

> > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
>
> It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> best address this tangle...

The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

[Jason Gerecke]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
> >
> > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> > best address this tangle...
>
> The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
> I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
> version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
>
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would
submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to
it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the
second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge?

I'll work on the updated combined patch...

Jason

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700
Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:  
> >  
> > > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?  
> > >
> > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> > > best address this tangle...  
> >
> > The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
> > I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
> > version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
> >
> >
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko  
> 
> Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would
> submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to
> it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the
> second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge?
> 
> I'll work on the updated combined patch...

I suspect this will be likely to create merge conflicts, so submit it like
that and I'll probably ask Wolfram to do an immutable branch that I can
then pull into IIO.  Hence we'll have exactly the same commits (IDs and all)
in both IIO and I2C trees.

Jonathan

> 
> Jason