linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TWL6040: fix build error

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 08:49:51 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonicro.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TWL6040: fix build error

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-05-11 03:20 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:03:51AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 05/11/2012 01:49 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>> Fixes build error due to missing of_property_read_u32.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I saw the same on x86-64 allyesconfig -- which means that in addition to
> >>> this missing header, it needs to have a Kconfig dependency that limits
> >>> it to just being enabled on the platforms where it physically is possible to
> >>> have the hardware.  I'm guessing limiting to ARM would be a good start?
> >>
> >> Yes it is only usable on ARM, most specifically on OMAP4+ platforms.
> >> If I make the twl6040 MFD core to depend on ARM (or even on OMAP) this
> >> won't happen again.
> > 
> > Is there any other errors beside missing include of.h (and extra
> > of_device.h?). The driver seems to be compiling fine on x86_64 so no
> > need to limit to ARM only...
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> It should be limited to the platforms where the hardware is available,
> so that coverage builds aren't needlessly spending cycles building
> stuff that can't possibly ever be used.  Also if it is limited to
> ARM, then we can't have an ARM bug like this one mask the x86_64
> allyesconfig build from uncovering possible errors that we really
> care about seeing.

Hi Paul,

I strongly disagree. The bug that we are talking about was not an
arch-specific bug; it eventually would have shown up on ARM with a
randconfig as well. So it is a _good_ thing that the build was not
limited just to ARM so that the bug got noticed early and fixed after
being present in -next for about a day.

So please do not add any additional constraints; better compile coverage
is a good thing.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/