lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 8/8] interconnect: sdm845: Fix build failure after cmd_db API change
Hi,

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:14 AM Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 18:47:22 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > On 12/7/18 18:27, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Hi Georgi,
> > >
> > > On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 17:29:17 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote:
> > >> Recently the cmd_db_read_aux_data() function was changed to avoid using
> > >> memcpy and return a pointer instead. Update the code to the new API and
> > >> fix the build failure.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: ed3cafa79ea7 ("soc: qcom: cmd-db: Stop memcpy()ing in cmd_db_read_aux_data()")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/interconnect/qcom/sdm845.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
> > >
> > > IIUC this file is introduced by patch 5. Should the fix be squashed
> > > into patch 5 directly ? Just to keep things bisectable.
> >
> > The reason why i have split it as a separate change is because as a
> > separate change it would be easier to review & test for the people who
> > are already familiar with the rest of the series.
> >
> > Another minor reason is that a separate patch will also make the life a
> > bit easier for some people who are back-porting this to kernels using
> > the older version of the cmd_db API.
> >
> > The commit that changed the cmd_db API is not yet in mainline, but in
> > linux-next. I am not sure what is preferred in this case?
>
> Not sure either but I guess that will depend who gets merged first ...
> If that's the cmd_db change, then you'll need to squash your fix in
> patch 5. If your series goes first, then the fix needs to be applied to
> the cmb_db change.
>
> I personally don't mind either way as long as we don't break bisection :-)

My $0.02 is that anyone downstream picking this will also be picking
the cmd db change, so I'd suggest squashing as suggested by Quentin.
Maybe you can do that and post a v12? Since it sounded like Greg was
about ready to land [1] maybe we shouldn't wait too long till doing
it?

...unfortunately I guess we need to figure out how this will actually
land. Greg can't pick the series up directly since it won't compile
without the cmd-db change. ...so we need to do one of the following:

1. Feed it through a tree that goes through arm-soc (Andy's tree or
arm-soc directly) so you'll have commit ed3cafa79ea7 ("soc: qcom:
cmd-db: Stop memcpy()ing in cmd_db_read_aux_data()").

2. Greg could also merge in Andy's pull request
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10710447/), but you'll get some
unrelated patches too.

3. Wait until next year and we have the next -rc1 to get this merged.

...it seems like #1 would be the least painful option, but obviously
others would have to be OK w/ it.


[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181206145547.GA7884@kroah.com


-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-07 22:37    [W:0.043 / U:32.396 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site