* Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
[not found] ` <0551a3ad-8c42-78fe-5b50-ebbc003e55e6@intel.com>
@ 2022-07-20 19:01 ` Jason Gerecke
2022-07-28 14:26 ` Jason Gerecke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gerecke @ 2022-07-20 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron, Lars-Peter Clausen, Wolfram Sang
Cc: linux-i2c, Ping Cheng, Tobita, Tatsunosuke, Jason Gerecke, llvm,
kbuild-all, linux-iio, LKML
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on wsa/i2c/for-next]
> [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.19-rc7 next-20220718]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
>
> url:
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git
> i2c/for-next
> config: hexagon-randconfig-r026-20220718
> (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220719/202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> d74b88c69dc2644bd0dc5d64e2d7413a0d4040e5)
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> wget
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross
> -O ~/bin/make.cross
> chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> #
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
> git fetch --no-tags linux-review
> Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> git checkout 9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> # save the config file
> mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
> COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
> O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iio/adc/
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1645:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, const char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> st->send = i2c_master_send;
> ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1646:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> st->recv = i2c_master_recv;
> ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 2 errors generated.
Wolfram and Jonathan,
Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
2022-07-20 19:01 ` [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls Jason Gerecke
@ 2022-07-28 14:26 ` Jason Gerecke
2022-07-28 20:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gerecke @ 2022-07-28 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron, Lars-Peter Clausen, Wolfram Sang
Cc: linux-i2c, Ping Cheng, Tobita, Tatsunosuke, Jason Gerecke, llvm,
kbuild-all, linux-iio, LKML
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on wsa/i2c/for-next]
> > [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.19-rc7 next-20220718]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url:
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git
> > i2c/for-next
> > config: hexagon-randconfig-r026-20220718
> > (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220719/202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> > d74b88c69dc2644bd0dc5d64e2d7413a0d4040e5)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> > wget
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross
> > -O ~/bin/make.cross
> > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> > #
> > https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> > git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
> > git fetch --no-tags linux-review
> > Jason-Gerecke/i2c-Use-u8-type-in-i2c-transfer-calls/20220718-233658
> > git checkout 9732240c23a365c0590f05ce83196869235a2ea7
> > # save the config file
> > mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
> > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1
> > O=build_dir ARCH=hexagon SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/iio/adc/
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1645:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, const char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, const unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> > st->send = i2c_master_send;
> > ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> drivers/iio/adc/max1363.c:1646:12: error: incompatible function pointer types assigning to 'int (*)(const struct i2c_client *, char *, int)' from 'int (const struct i2c_client *, u8 *, int)' (aka 'int (const struct i2c_client *, unsigned char *, int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types]
> > st->recv = i2c_master_recv;
> > ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 2 errors generated.
>
> Wolfram and Jonathan,
>
> Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
best address this tangle...
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
2022-07-28 14:26 ` Jason Gerecke
@ 2022-07-28 20:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-07-28 22:48 ` Jason Gerecke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2022-07-28 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gerecke
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Lars-Peter Clausen, Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c,
Ping Cheng, Tobita, Tatsunosuke, Jason Gerecke, llvm, kbuild-all,
linux-iio, LKML
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
>
> It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> best address this tangle...
The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
2022-07-28 20:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2022-07-28 22:48 ` Jason Gerecke
2022-07-31 12:43 ` Jonathan Cameron
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gerecke @ 2022-07-28 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Lars-Peter Clausen, Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c,
Ping Cheng, Tobita, Tatsunosuke, Jason Gerecke, llvm, kbuild-all,
linux-iio, LKML
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
> >
> > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> > best address this tangle...
>
> The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
> I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
> version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
>
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would
submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to
it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the
second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge?
I'll work on the updated combined patch...
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
2022-07-28 22:48 ` Jason Gerecke
@ 2022-07-31 12:43 ` Jonathan Cameron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2022-07-31 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gerecke
Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Lars-Peter Clausen, Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c,
Ping Cheng, Tobita, Tatsunosuke, Jason Gerecke, llvm, kbuild-all,
linux-iio, LKML
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700
Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
> > >
> > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> > > best address this tangle...
> >
> > The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
> > I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
> > version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
> >
> >
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko
>
> Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would
> submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to
> it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the
> second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge?
>
> I'll work on the updated combined patch...
I suspect this will be likely to create merge conflicts, so submit it like
that and I'll probably ask Wolfram to do an immutable branch that I can
then pull into IIO. Hence we'll have exactly the same commits (IDs and all)
in both IIO and I2C trees.
Jonathan
>
> Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-31 12:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com>
[not found] ` <0551a3ad-8c42-78fe-5b50-ebbc003e55e6@intel.com>
2022-07-20 19:01 ` [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls Jason Gerecke
2022-07-28 14:26 ` Jason Gerecke
2022-07-28 20:47 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-07-28 22:48 ` Jason Gerecke
2022-07-31 12:43 ` Jonathan Cameron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).