From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753445Ab3F2XUn (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:20:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:59856 "EHLO mail-pd0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752057Ab3F2XUl (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:20:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:20:38 -0700 From: Olof Johansson To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Maxime Ripard , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Emilio Lopez , torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings Message-ID: <20130629232038.GA12533@quad.lixom.net> References: <1372437844-16325-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20130628171532.GD30603@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130628200333.GA2756@lukather> <20130629193819.GD3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130629225426.GA12221@quad.lixom.net> <20130629231425.GG3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130629231425.GG3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:20:38 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings In-Reply-To: <20130629231425.GG3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1372437844-16325-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20130628171532.GD30603@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130628200333.GA2756@lukather> <20130629193819.GD3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130629225426.GA12221@quad.lixom.net> <20130629231425.GG3353@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130629232038.GA12533@quad.lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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