linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the broadcom tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 19:29:50 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the broadcom tree



On 10/4/2022 5:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:16:54 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:54:19 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:33:48 +0200 Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25.07.2022 01:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> After merging the broadcom tree, today's linux-next build (arm
>>>>> multi_v7_defconfig) produced these warnings:
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi:240.21-246.5: Warning (pci_bridge): /axi@...00000/pcie@...00: missing ranges for PCI bridge (or not a bridge)
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi:248.21-254.5: Warning (pci_bridge): /axi@...00000/pcie@...00: missing ranges for PCI bridge (or not a bridge)
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi:256.21-262.5: Warning (pci_bridge): /axi@...00000/pcie@...00: missing ranges for PCI bridge (or not a bridge)
>>>>
>>>> This is expected. My commit ef126d3f58d25 ("ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Add
>>>> basic PCI controller properties") reduced following warnings:
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dtb: pcie@...00: 'device_type' is a required property
>>>>           From schema: /lib/python3.9/site-packages/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dtb: pcie@...00: 'ranges' is a required property
>>>>           From schema: /lib/python3.9/site-packages/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dtb: pcie@...00: '#address-cells' is a required property
>>>>           From schema: /lib/python3.9/site-packages/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dtb: pcie@...00: '#size-cells' is a required property
>>>>           From schema: /lib/python3.9/site-packages/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> down to this one:
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm47081-buffalo-wzr-600dhp2.dtb: pcie@...00: 'ranges' is a required property
>>>>           From schema: /lib/python3.9/site-packages/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and basically does the right thing (adds required properties).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm fully aware "ranges" need to be added (it's mentioned in the commit)
>>>> and it's one of next things on my BCM5301X list.
>>>>
>>>> So while my commits triggers that problem it also reduces warnings so
>>>> I'd say it's acceptable.
>>
>> Not from my point of view:  I was not getting any warnings and now I am
>> getting 254 lines of warnings :-(
>>    
>>> So, is something being done about these introduced warnings?
>>
>> I am still seeing these warnings.
>>
>> The above commit is now
>>
>>    61dc1e3850a6 ("ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Add basic PCI controller properties")
> 
> Has any progress been made with this?  This commit is now in the
> arm-soc tree.

Yes, I was hoping to get some feedback on this patch:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220920210213.3268525-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com/

but I suppose being the ARM SoC maintainer I can just go ahead and push it.
-- 
Florian