Re: [PATCH 0/4] drivers/bus: Freescale Management Complex bus driver patch series

German Rivera
2014-09-18T00:20:34Z

On 09/15/2014 06:44 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:34:20 -0500
> "J. German Rivera" <German.Rivera@freescale.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch series introduces Linux support for the Freescale
>> Management Complex (fsl-mc) hardware.
>
> here are the results of using some tools to check this patchseries:
>
> make C=1 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__":
>
> drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_sys.c:235:9: warning: context imbalance in 'mc_send_command' - different lock contexts for basic block
> drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.c: In function 'dprc_add_new_devices':
> drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.c:173:6: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'uint32_t' [-Wformat=]
> region_desc.size);
> ^
>
I'll fix this in v2 respin.

> When built as a module (CONFIG_FSL_MC_BUS=m):
>
> ERROR: ".dprc_get_obj" [drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: ".dprc_get_obj_count" [drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: ".dprc_close" [drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: ".dprc_open" [drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: ".dprc_get_obj_region" [drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_dprc.ko] undefined!
> make[1]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
> make: *** [modules] Error 2
>
I'll fix this in v2 respin.

> checkpatch:
>
> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
>
> WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,qoriq-mc" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
> #690: FILE: drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl_mc_bus.c:528:
> + {.compatible = "fsl,qoriq-mc",},
>
> For the former warning, I'd suggest moving patch 4/4's contents up
> in the series.
>
I tried moving 4/4 to be 1/4 but still get the the same warning from
checkpatch. So, this suggestion does not work. Besides, I took a look
at other commits that update the MAINTAINERS such as
563da3a90364fc29cd09bed034162592e591747a, and that commit comes after
the commits that added the new files.

> For the latter warning, googling for the property shows an upstream
> effort, so it might be ok, but it'd be nice to provide a
> cross-reference to the status of the latest post, to make it easier
> for reviewer consumption.
>
> Also, I think you'd get more recipient coverage by using
> scripts/get_maintainer.pl.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kim
>