Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 May 2020 10:26:27 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] firmware: smccc: Add basic SMCCC v1.2 + ARCH_SOC_ID support |
| |
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:17:39AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:06:23AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:11 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > Indeed, it is also last patch in the series. However if Arnd is happy > > > with the sysfs names, we can move to generic code later without breaking > > > anything. > > > > > > We need not revert or drop it now. I will leave that to you or Arnd to > > > decide. Just that it may be too late to get acks for all the soc sysfs > > > drivers in time for v5.8 > > > > > > I am fine if you want to drop the last patch. > > > > Ok, let's drop that patch then and make sure we do something that > > everyone is happy with later on. I'm already in favor of adding > > a more reliable soc_device instance based on this, but we need to > > be sure we don't screw up the contents of the attributes when we > > can't change them later. > > > > > > > >> drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c:14:13: warning: no previous prototype for function 'arm_smccc_version_init' [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > > > > void __init arm_smccc_version_init(u32 version, enum arm_smccc_conduit conduit) > > > > > ^ > > > > > drivers/firmware/smccc/smccc.c:14:1: note: declare 'static' if the > > > > > function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit > > > > > void __init arm_smccc_version_init(u32 version, enum arm_smccc_conduit conduit) > > > > > > > > I saw that when I applied the patches, but since the function is called from > > > > another compilation unit (psci/psci.o), I just ignored it as we have loads > > > > of these already and it only screams if you build with W=1. > > > > > > > > > > /me confused. Do you need the fix for this warning or you are happy to ignore? > > > > I want a fix for that, as I hope we can eventually turn this warning on by > > default and stop playing whack-a-mole when they come up. Most of these > > warnings are harmless, but occasionally the prototypes don't match exactly > > and cause real bugs depending on the configuration, and ensuring both > > sides include a common header file is an easy way to make it work > > more reliably. > > > > Note that the warning should come up for either W=1 or C=1, and I also > > think that > > new code should generally be written sparse-clean and have no warnings with > > 'make C=1' as a rule. > > Fair enough. Is anybody working on a tree-wide sweep for this, like we've > done for other things such as zero-length arrays? If so, I can start > enforcing this in the arch code as well (I haven't been so far, even though > I do run sparse on every commit). > > Anyway, I've dropped the last patch from the branch, and we can put a fix > for the missing prototype on top. >
Thanks Will, sorry for the trouble. Though I can send the fix for the missing prototype right away, I would like to get my clang setup working as an opportunity. clang-8 that I have is failing vanilla v5.7-rc6 when expanding arm_smccc_1_1_*
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |