From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:08:02 -0700 Subject: arm-soc boot: 619 boots: 11 failed, 605 passed with 2 offline, 1 conflict (v4.7-rc3-216-gec0776a212c1) In-Reply-To: <20160615191254.GA19579@kozik-lap> (Krzysztof Kozlowski's message of "Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:12:54 +0200") References: <5760acd0.571a1c0a.34a58.7333@mx.google.com> <9297488.MELcTREXgu@wuerfel> <20160615191254.GA19579@kozik-lap> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Krzysztof Kozlowski writes: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:07:50AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Arnd Bergmann writes: >> >> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 6:18:08 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote: >> >> arm: >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_LKDTM=y: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y+CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS=y: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_EFI=y: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> exynos_defconfig: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig+CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v7_defconfig: >> >> exynos5410-odroidxu: 1 failed lab >> >> >> >> multi_v5_defconfig: >> >> at91sam9261ek: 1 failed lab >> >> at91sam9m10g45ek: 1 failed lab >> >> at91sam9x25ek: 1 failed lab >> >> at91sam9x35ek: 1 failed lab >> > >> > These all seem to have broken after yesterday's merges, adding >> > Alexandre and Krzysztof to Cc here so they can have a look. >> >> The exynos5410 fails look like the UART3 issue reported earlier and >> which is also happening in linux-next. >> >> Krzysztof posted a fix[1] that was tested by Javier and myself that >> fixed the problem, but I don't see that upstream yet. >> >> Krzysztof: did you get that fix submitted yet? >> >> Kevin >> >> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146469459503940&w=2 > > The v2 of it is here: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9144897/ oops, yeah. That's the one Javier and I tested. > I do not recall receiving any feedback nor confirmation of applying the patch. > I guess it is time to resend. I'll do it on Thursday. Yeah, add the tested-by, and since this fixes a known regression, I guess it should go in unless there are any objections. Kevin