From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754949Ab2GRQ11 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:27:27 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:36621 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401Ab2GRQ1Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:27:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120718161023.GE4495@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20120717185749.GJ4477@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120718161023.GE4495@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> From: Grant Likely Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:27:03 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zVKj8HUmawjVpco1qP9mS0QNY2Q Message-ID: Subject: Re: Boot breaks in -next from LEGACY to LINEAR conversion To: Mark Brown Cc: Paul Mundt , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Rob Herring , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kukjin Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:57:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> -next fails to boot for me today on my s3c64xx based systems. Walking >> back to the last time I tried and bisecting likely branches I find that >> commit 910139 (irqdomain: Replace LEGACY mapping with LINEAR) is the one >> that introduces the build break. Unfortunately the boot fails before I >> get a console which makes diagnosis somewhat more tricky than would be >> ideal. Any ideas? > > Further data: the irq_domain_associate_many() calls that we're now doing > are also causing WARN_ON()s to go off during boot after commit 98aa46 > (irqdomain: Support for static IRQ mapping and association) causing > breakage for my interrupt using MFDs. > > I don't really have time to investigate now but backing out that commit > seems to make things much happier, I suspect there's some collision with > IRQs allocated statically by the platform but I don't immediately see > what's new here. I had seen that on my end too, but I thought I had fixed it... I guess not (or this is a similar type of failure). I'll investigate. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.