[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160725144846.GS15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:48:46 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > produced this warning:
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/clocksource.h:18:0,
> > from include/linux/clockchips.h:13,
> > from drivers/clocksource/jcore-pit.c:14:
> > include/linux/of.h:1004:20: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> > .data = (fn == (fn_type)NULL) ? fn : fn }
> > ^
> > include/linux/of.h:1020:3: note: in expansion of macro '_OF_DECLARE'
> > _OF_DECLARE(table, name, compat, fn, of_init_fn_1_ret)
> > ^
> > include/linux/clocksource.h:247:2: note: in expansion of macro 'OF_DECLARE_1_RET'
> > OF_DECLARE_1_RET(clksrc, name, compat, fn)
> > ^
> > drivers/clocksource/jcore-pit.c:277:1: note: in expansion of macro 'CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE'
> > CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(jcore_pit, "jcore,pit", jcore_pit_init);
> > ^
> >
> > Introduced by commits
> >
> > b7c4db861683 ("clocksource/drivers/clksrc-probe: Introduce init functions with return code")
> > 177cf6e52b0a ("clocksources: Switch back to the clksrc table")
> >
> > interacting with commit
> >
> > e0aa0655c60b ("clocksource: add J-Core timer/clocksource driver")
> >
> > from the sh tree.
>
> And why is that driver coming through the superh tree and not through the
> clocksource maintainers? It's not only based on an old interface it's probably
> unreviewed as well ...
Drivers will go upstream through their proper subsystem maintainers,
not from my tree, but last time I got feedback that these drivers had
not seen any testing in linux-next. I can refrain from including
patches that I can't upstream directly in my for-next branch in the
future if you'd prefer but this way seemed to make less work for
others.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists