[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi Arnd, Olof,

Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.

These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
formal pull request for these patches

Thanks!
Maxime

Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
  ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

Maxime Ripard (1):
  sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings

 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi Arnd, Olof,

Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.

These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
formal pull request for these patches

Thanks!
Maxime

Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
  ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

Maxime Ripard (1):
  sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings

 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

[Maxime Ripard]

From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

This patch updates the in-kernel dts files according to the latest cpus
and cpu bindings updates for ARM.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
index 9e6fb45..676c704 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu@0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
index df96c54..ee1f31f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu@0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

[Maxime Ripard]

From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

This patch updates the in-kernel dts files according to the latest cpus
and cpu bindings updates for ARM.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi | 2 ++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
index 9e6fb45..676c704 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu at 0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
index df96c54..ee1f31f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi
@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu at 0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 2/2] sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

The A10s DTSI was merged without the newer cpu bindings, leading to a
warning being displayed at boot time.

Convert the A10s DTSI to these new bindings, and thus remove the
warning.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
index 2307ce8..55c086e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu@0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 2/2] sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

The A10s DTSI was merged without the newer cpu bindings, leading to a
warning being displayed at boot time.

Convert the A10s DTSI to these new bindings, and thus remove the
warning.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
index 2307ce8..55c086e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi
@@ -18,7 +18,9 @@
 
 	cpus {
 		cpu at 0 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a8";
+			reg = <0x0>;
 		};
 	};
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
> 
> Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> 
> These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> formal pull request for these patches
> 
> Thanks!
> Maxime
> 
> Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> 
> Maxime Ripard (1):
>   sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
> 
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> 

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
> 
> Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> 
> These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> formal pull request for these patches
> 
> Thanks!
> Maxime
> 
> Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates

The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> 
> Maxime Ripard (1):
>   sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
> 
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > 
> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > 
> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > formal pull request for these patches
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Maxime
> > 
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> 
> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?

Indeed.

Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
3.11?

(And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > 
> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > 
> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > formal pull request for these patches
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Maxime
> > 
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> 
> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?

Indeed.

Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
3.11?

(And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130628/ebf1b3eb/attachment.sig>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
>> >
>> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
>> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
>> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
>> >
>> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
>> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
>> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
>> > formal pull request for these patches
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Maxime
>> >
>> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
>>
>> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
>
> Indeed.
>
> Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> 3.11?
>
> (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)

This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
produce warnings at boot.

Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?


-Olof

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
>> >
>> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
>> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
>> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
>> >
>> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
>> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
>> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
>> > formal pull request for these patches
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Maxime
>> >
>> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
>>
>> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
>
> Indeed.
>
> Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> 3.11?
>
> (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)

This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
produce warnings at boot.

Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?


-Olof

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> >> >
> >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> >> > formal pull request for these patches
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Maxime
> >> >
> >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> >>
> >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > 3.11?
> >
> > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> 
> This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> produce warnings at boot.
> 
> Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?

Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
(cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.

ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.

I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
time).

I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
kernels queue as well if we all agree.

If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
unfortunately matters.

Again, my apologies, I am really sorry, please advise on the best way to do it.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> >> >
> >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> >> > formal pull request for these patches
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Maxime
> >> >
> >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> >>
> >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > 3.11?
> >
> > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> 
> This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> produce warnings at boot.
> 
> Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?

Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
(cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.

ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.

I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
time).

I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
kernels queue as well if we all agree.

If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
unfortunately matters.

Again, my apologies, I am really sorry, please advise on the best way to do it.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3361 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > >> >
> > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > >> > formal pull request for these patches
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > Maxime
> > >> >
> > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> > >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> > >>
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
> (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
> tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.
> 
> ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
> topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
> since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.
> 
> I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
> I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
> would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
> stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
> to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
> CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
> time).
> 
> I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
> a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
> kernels queue as well if we all agree.
> 
> If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
> unfortunately matters.

Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't
find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit
labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these
the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ?

Russell, Arnd, Olof, who should revert this patch, and through which
tree?

Thanks,
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > >> >
> > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > >> > formal pull request for these patches
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > Maxime
> > >> >
> > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> > >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> > >>
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
> (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
> tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.
> 
> ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
> topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
> since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.
> 
> I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
> I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
> would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
> stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
> to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
> CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
> time).
> 
> I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
> a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
> kernels queue as well if we all agree.
> 
> If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
> unfortunately matters.

Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't
find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit
labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these
the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ?

Russell, Arnd, Olof, who should revert this patch, and through which
tree?

Thanks,
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130629/93935562/attachment.sig>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 07:07:30PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > > >> > formal pull request for these patches
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> > Maxime
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> > > >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> > > >>
> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > 3.11?
> > > >
> > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > 
> > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > 
> > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > 
> > Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
> > (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
> > tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.
> > 
> > ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
> > topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
> > since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.
> > 
> > I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
> > I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
> > would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
> > stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
> > to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
> > CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
> > time).
> > 
> > I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
> > a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
> > kernels queue as well if we all agree.
> > 
> > If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
> > unfortunately matters.
> 
> Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't
> find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit
> labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these
> the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ?

7764/1 is in Russell's patch system and has not been applied yet.
7763/1 can stay in since it is a fix that cleans-up cpu_logical_map
initialization.

1ba9bf0a (7762/1) is the patch that should be reverted (or we merge all
dts updates, since as I said, after all dts updates are fixes as well,
the warning is caused by the check for /cpu device_type to be == "cpu".
Those dts in the kernel are non-compliant, and have never been).

If 7762/1 is reverted, 7764/1 in Russell's patch system does not apply
cleanly anymore. Hence, if 7762/1 is reverted, we also have to drop 7764/1
from the patch system and I have to update it.

I asked to remove 7762/1 from stable kernels queues, the question is
still open if we want to backport all dts updates to stable kernels or
not. I would say no for now, hence 7762/1 can just be dropped (it was
meant to deal with the cpus node having children that are != /cpu. This
can happen with the new topology bindings, but let me say we will cross
that bridge when we come to it, 7762/1 has already caused too much
trouble for what it is worth).

On top of that there are bindings updates that I asked Grant to get them
merged for 3.11.

I am really really sorry for taking your time for this, but it has not been
easy to clean all dts up and define a proper standard, it is a necessary
evil.

Thanks a lot guys, please let me know how I can help, apologies.
Lorenzo

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 07:07:30PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > > >> > formal pull request for these patches
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> > Maxime
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> > > >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> > > >>
> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > 3.11?
> > > >
> > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > 
> > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > 
> > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > 
> > Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
> > (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
> > tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.
> > 
> > ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
> > topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
> > since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.
> > 
> > I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
> > I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
> > would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
> > stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
> > to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
> > CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
> > time).
> > 
> > I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
> > a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
> > kernels queue as well if we all agree.
> > 
> > If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
> > unfortunately matters.
> 
> Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't
> find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit
> labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these
> the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ?

7764/1 is in Russell's patch system and has not been applied yet.
7763/1 can stay in since it is a fix that cleans-up cpu_logical_map
initialization.

1ba9bf0a (7762/1) is the patch that should be reverted (or we merge all
dts updates, since as I said, after all dts updates are fixes as well,
the warning is caused by the check for /cpu device_type to be == "cpu".
Those dts in the kernel are non-compliant, and have never been).

If 7762/1 is reverted, 7764/1 in Russell's patch system does not apply
cleanly anymore. Hence, if 7762/1 is reverted, we also have to drop 7764/1
from the patch system and I have to update it.

I asked to remove 7762/1 from stable kernels queues, the question is
still open if we want to backport all dts updates to stable kernels or
not. I would say no for now, hence 7762/1 can just be dropped (it was
meant to deal with the cpus node having children that are != /cpu. This
can happen with the new topology bindings, but let me say we will cross
that bridge when we come to it, 7762/1 has already caused too much
trouble for what it is worth).

On top of that there are bindings updates that I asked Grant to get them
merged for 3.11.

I am really really sorry for taking your time for this, but it has not been
easy to clean all dts up and define a proper standard, it is a necessary
evil.

Thanks a lot guys, please let me know how I can help, apologies.
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > 3.11?
> >
> > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> 
> This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> produce warnings at boot.
> 
> Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?

Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
is about.

This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
and not how they look either.

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > 3.11?
> >
> > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> 
> This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> produce warnings at boot.
> 
> Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?

Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
is about.

This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
and not how they look either.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

Russell, technically speaking what are you saying is correct, but the
problem is that the 7762/1, 7763/1 and 7764/1 were part of a series
to update DT cpu/cpus bindings, topology, bring dts files up to standard
and update kernel code to comply. The problem is the following: if
7762/1 is merged but dts updates in the arm-soc tree (that can be
considered fixes, but as I said it is hard to draw a line between fixes
and dev since this series is meant to redefine the DT bindings themselves
to make them as compliant as possible with ePAPR) are not merged at the same
time, the kernel triggers warnings for boards with non-compliant dts.

That's the same reason why I asked to drop 7762/1 from stable queues,
since if it gets there all dts updates should get there at the same
time.

Please let me know if that's unclear and how I can help you fix the
problem, I am just trying to syncronize all the changes the best I can.

Apologies and thanks,
Lorenzo

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

Russell, technically speaking what are you saying is correct, but the
problem is that the 7762/1, 7763/1 and 7764/1 were part of a series
to update DT cpu/cpus bindings, topology, bring dts files up to standard
and update kernel code to comply. The problem is the following: if
7762/1 is merged but dts updates in the arm-soc tree (that can be
considered fixes, but as I said it is hard to draw a line between fixes
and dev since this series is meant to redefine the DT bindings themselves
to make them as compliant as possible with ePAPR) are not merged at the same
time, the kernel triggers warnings for boards with non-compliant dts.

That's the same reason why I asked to drop 7762/1 from stable queues,
since if it gets there all dts updates should get there at the same
time.

Please let me know if that's unclear and how I can help you fix the
problem, I am just trying to syncronize all the changes the best I can.

Apologies and thanks,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.

And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
is being printed.

I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?

If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
course apply and send it on instead.


Thanks,

-Olof


-----

ARM: dt: Only print warning, not WARN() on bad cpu map in device tree

Due to recent changes and expecations of proper cpu bindings, there are now
cases for many of the in-tree devicetrees where a WARN() will hit on boot due
to badly formatted /cpus nodes.

Downgrade this to a pr_warn() to be less alarmist, since it's not a new
problem.

Tested on Arndale, Cubox, Seaboard and Panda ES. Panda hits the WARN
without this, the others do not.

Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
index 0905502..707f99e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
@@ -152,9 +152,11 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void)
 		tmp_map[i] = hwid;
 	}
 
-	if (WARN(!bootcpu_valid, "DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], "
-				 "fall back to default cpu_logical_map\n"))
+	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
+		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
+			"default cpu_logical_map\n");
 		return;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Since the boot CPU node contains proper data, and all nodes have

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.

And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
is being printed.

I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?

If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
course apply and send it on instead.


Thanks,

-Olof


-----

ARM: dt: Only print warning, not WARN() on bad cpu map in device tree

Due to recent changes and expecations of proper cpu bindings, there are now
cases for many of the in-tree devicetrees where a WARN() will hit on boot due
to badly formatted /cpus nodes.

Downgrade this to a pr_warn() to be less alarmist, since it's not a new
problem.

Tested on Arndale, Cubox, Seaboard and Panda ES. Panda hits the WARN
without this, the others do not.

Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
index 0905502..707f99e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
@@ -152,9 +152,11 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void)
 		tmp_map[i] = hwid;
 	}
 
-	if (WARN(!bootcpu_valid, "DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], "
-				 "fall back to default cpu_logical_map\n"))
+	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
+		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
+			"default cpu_logical_map\n");
 		return;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Since the boot CPU node contains proper data, and all nodes have

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> 
> And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> is being printed.
> 
> I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> 
> If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> course apply and send it on instead.

You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...

> +	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> +		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> +			"default cpu_logical_map\n");

Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
one of its common mistakes.

Incidentally, here's a few of fun ones I found today which illustrates
why checkpatch can be bad news if everything it spits out is believed
by the user:

WARNING: simple_strtoul is obsolete, use kstrtoul instead
#1424: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_debugfs.c:90:
+       reg = simple_strtoul(buf, &p, 16);

Umm yes, and to use kstrtoul(), I'd have to:
- copy the string _safely_ to avoid any buffer overflow
- find the first non-value character
- terminate the string with a \0 or a \n\0
- remember where in the string I'd got to to parse the next argument
And pushing that complexity into drivers, which if it's wrong causes
security problems, is better than using simple_strtoul() because ...?

ERROR: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop
#2122: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_fb.c:45:
+#define FMT(drm, fmt, mod)             \
+       case DRM_FORMAT_##drm:          \
+               format = CFG_##fmt;     \
+               config = mod;           \
+               break

Oh yea, that's really going to work for that isn't it!

WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
#2126: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_fb.c:49:
+               break

Err, what extern? :)

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> 
> And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> is being printed.
> 
> I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> 
> If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> course apply and send it on instead.

You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...

> +	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> +		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> +			"default cpu_logical_map\n");

Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
one of its common mistakes.

Incidentally, here's a few of fun ones I found today which illustrates
why checkpatch can be bad news if everything it spits out is believed
by the user:

WARNING: simple_strtoul is obsolete, use kstrtoul instead
#1424: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_debugfs.c:90:
+       reg = simple_strtoul(buf, &p, 16);

Umm yes, and to use kstrtoul(), I'd have to:
- copy the string _safely_ to avoid any buffer overflow
- find the first non-value character
- terminate the string with a \0 or a \n\0
- remember where in the string I'd got to to parse the next argument
And pushing that complexity into drivers, which if it's wrong causes
security problems, is better than using simple_strtoul() because ...?

ERROR: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop
#2122: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_fb.c:45:
+#define FMT(drm, fmt, mod)             \
+       case DRM_FORMAT_##drm:          \
+               format = CFG_##fmt;     \
+               config = mod;           \
+               break

Oh yea, that's really going to work for that isn't it!

WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
#2126: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_fb.c:49:
+               break

Err, what extern? :)

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:14:26AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> > with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> > and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> > a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> > 
> > And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> > merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> > as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> > is being printed.
> > 
> > I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> > people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> > 
> > If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> > directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> > course apply and send it on instead.
> 
> You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...
> 
> > +	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> > +		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> > +			"default cpu_logical_map\n");
> 
> Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
> Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
> Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
> one of its common mistakes.

I didn't even run it through checkpatch, and I prefer greppable strings too --
I just went with what the rest of the file already used in this case to keep
the change minimal given timing.

I'll send a fresh copy with your ack and the above changed. Thanks.


-Olof

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:14:26AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> > with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> > and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> > a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> > 
> > And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> > merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> > as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> > is being printed.
> > 
> > I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> > people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> > 
> > If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> > directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> > course apply and send it on instead.
> 
> You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...
> 
> > +	if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> > +		pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> > +			"default cpu_logical_map\n");
> 
> Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
> Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
> Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
> one of its common mistakes.

I didn't even run it through checkpatch, and I prefer greppable strings too --
I just went with what the rest of the file already used in this case to keep
the change minimal given timing.

I'll send a fresh copy with your ack and the above changed. Thanks.


-Olof

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
final version to the patch system.

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
final version to the patch system.

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 28/06/2013 18:44, Maxime Ripard :
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
>
> Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
>
> These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> formal pull request for these patches

Just for the heads-up, the same happened to AT91 SAMA5D3.
As the solution is already in linux-next, we simply have to make sure 
that the patch is reported to the stable branches...

Bye,


>
> Thanks!
> Maxime
>
> Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>    ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
>
> Maxime Ripard (1):
>    sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
>
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
>   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>


-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 28/06/2013 18:44, Maxime Ripard :
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
>
> Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
>
> These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> formal pull request for these patches

Just for the heads-up, the same happened to AT91 SAMA5D3.
As the solution is already in linux-next, we simply have to make sure 
that the patch is reported to the stable branches...

Bye,


>
> Thanks!
> Maxime
>
> Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
>    ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
>
> Maxime Ripard (1):
>    sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
>
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
>   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>


-- 
Nicolas Ferre

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:12:25PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 28/06/2013 18:44, Maxime Ripard :
> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> >
> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> >
> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > formal pull request for these patches
> 
> Just for the heads-up, the same happened to AT91 SAMA5D3.
> As the solution is already in linux-next, we simply have to make sure 
> that the patch is reported to the stable branches...

Not really. I dropped 1ba9bf0a (ARM 7762/1) from stable kernel queues, hence
if and when we decide to backport all these DT updates/fixes to stable kernels
we will have to do it in one go.

Let's postpone this decision until -rc1 is out.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> 
> Bye,
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Maxime
> >
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >    ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> >
> > Maxime Ripard (1):
> >    sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
> >
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
> >   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Ferre
> 

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:12:25PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 28/06/2013 18:44, Maxime Ripard :
> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> >
> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> >
> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > formal pull request for these patches
> 
> Just for the heads-up, the same happened to AT91 SAMA5D3.
> As the solution is already in linux-next, we simply have to make sure 
> that the patch is reported to the stable branches...

Not really. I dropped 1ba9bf0a (ARM 7762/1) from stable kernel queues, hence
if and when we decide to backport all these DT updates/fixes to stable kernels
we will have to do it in one go.

Let's postpone this decision until -rc1 is out.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> 
> Bye,
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Maxime
> >
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> >    ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> >
> > Maxime Ripard (1):
> >    sunxi: a10s: dtsi: Convert cpu node to the new cpu bindings
> >
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi  | 2 ++
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a10s.dtsi | 2 ++
> >   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun5i-a13.dtsi  | 2 ++
> >   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Ferre
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > 3.11?
> > > >
> > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > 
> > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > 
> > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > 
> > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > is about.
> > 
> > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > and not how they look either.
> 
> As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> final version to the patch system.

Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
to get merged.

Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:

https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html

were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).

It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.

dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
through arm-soc.

IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
you with this stuff.

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > 3.11?
> > > >
> > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > 
> > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > 
> > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > 
> > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > is about.
> > 
> > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > and not how they look either.
> 
> As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> final version to the patch system.

Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
to get merged.

Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:

https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html

were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).

It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.

dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
through arm-soc.

IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
you with this stuff.

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > 3.11?
> > > >
> > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > 
> > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > 
> > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > 
> > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > is about.
> > 
> > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > and not how they look either.
> 
> As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> final version to the patch system.

Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
to get merged.

Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:

https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html

were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).

It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.

dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
through arm-soc.

IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
you with this stuff.

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3649 bytes --]

Hi Lorenzo,

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:19:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > > 3.11?
> > > > >
> > > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > > 
> > > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > > 
> > > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > > 
> > > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > > is about.
> > > 
> > > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > > and not how they look either.
> > 
> > As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> > failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> > 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> > system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> > final version to the patch system.
> 
> Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
> to get merged.
> 
> Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:
> 
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html
> 
> were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
> we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
> the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
> request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).
> 
> It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
> covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.
> 
> dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
> through arm-soc.
> 
> IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
> kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
> please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
> as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
> you with this stuff.

Just to be clear, I had no problems with the patches themselves, but
just the way it was merged.

That being said, I think every DTS patch you did should be merged by
now, only the second patch of this serie for the A10S hasn't.

Arnd, Olof, could you just apply the patch 2 for a 3.11-rc*? It's the
only rc patch for the sunxi platform for now, so I don't think a pull
request would be worth it, but I can send one anyway if you prefer.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3680 bytes --]

Hi Lorenzo,

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:19:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > > <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > > 3.11?
> > > > >
> > > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > > 
> > > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > > 
> > > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > > 
> > > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > > is about.
> > > 
> > > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > > and not how they look either.
> > 
> > As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> > failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> > 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> > system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> > final version to the patch system.
> 
> Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
> to get merged.
> 
> Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:
> 
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html
> 
> were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
> we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
> the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
> request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).
> 
> It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
> covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.
> 
> dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
> through arm-soc.
> 
> IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
> kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
> please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
> as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
> you with this stuff.

Just to be clear, I had no problems with the patches themselves, but
just the way it was merged.

That being said, I think every DTS patch you did should be merged by
now, only the second patch of this serie for the A10S hasn't.

Arnd, Olof, could you just apply the patch 2 for a 3.11-rc*? It's the
only rc patch for the sunxi platform for now, so I don't think a pull
request would be worth it, but I can send one anyway if you prefer.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi Lorenzo,

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:19:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > > > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > > > 3.11?
> > > > >
> > > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > > > 
> > > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > > > produce warnings at boot.
> > > > 
> > > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> > > 
> > > Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> > > is about.
> > > 
> > > This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> > > merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> > > Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> > > and not how they look either.
> > 
> > As Olof's warning downgrade is being merged (thanks for that and apologies for
> > failing to explain patches dependencies properly and stable related issues),
> > 7764/1 won't apply cleanly anymore. Can you please drop it from the patch
> > system, I will update it and test it first thing tomorrow and send a
> > final version to the patch system.
> 
> Patch 7779/1, replacing 7764/1 is in the patch system now, and is ready
> to get merged.
> 
> Unfortunately cpu/cpus bindings documentation updates, following:
> 
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036735.html
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-May/033779.html
> 
> were not pulled in the kernel. This is an issue since this means that
> we still have no reference in the kernel or wherever it has to be, to
> the final cpus/cpu bindings for ARM and ARM64 provided in the pull
> request link above (that has been reviewed to death and acknowledged).
> 
> It is a significant overhaul of cpu/cpus bindings standard for ARM/ARM64,
> covering all CPUs harking back to arm926 and beyond, and should be final.
> 
> dts updates following that standard have already been pulled into 3.11
> through arm-soc.
> 
> IMHO the bindings contained in pull request above must be merged in the
> kernel asap, I would like to ask you please what should I do to get them in
> please. If we want to move bindings documentation elsewhere let's do it,
> as long as there is a published standard I am happy and will stop annoying
> you with this stuff.

Just to be clear, I had no problems with the patches themselves, but
just the way it was merged.

That being said, I think every DTS patch you did should be merged by
now, only the second patch of this serie for the A10S hasn't.

Arnd, Olof, could you just apply the patch 2 for a 3.11-rc*? It's the
only rc patch for the sunxi platform for now, so I don't think a pull
request would be worth it, but I can send one anyway if you prefer.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130712/cb1d3c36/attachment.sig>