Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 May 2020 10:15:15 +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 11:06:23AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:11 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:57:56AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:07 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:54:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:29 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Applied to arm64 (for-next/smccc), thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arnd -- Sudeep's reply to you about the sysfs groups seemed reasonable to me, > > > > > > > but please shout if you'd rather I dropped this in order to pursue an > > > > > > > alternative approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > I missed the reply earlier, thanks for pointing me to it again. > > > > > > D'oh, I took your silence as "no objections". Oh well! > > > > > > > > > I'm not entirely convinced, but don't revert it for now because of that, > > > > > > I assume we can find a solution. > > > > > > Ok, cheers. It's on a separate branch so it's easy enough to drop if > > > necessary (i.e. no reverts needed). Sudeep -- please send any extra patches > > > on top of the branch. > > > > > > > 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. >
Sure. Will, please drop the last patch in the series. I will rework moving the custom attributes to the core.
> > > > >> 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. >
Agreed.
> 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. >
Sure, I am facing issues with clang-8, it fails to build arm_smccc_1_1_invoke which I think Nick was mentioning in some other thread. I will try latest clang.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |