linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: Add support for Unisoc's UMS512

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0bDn3Eu6sTjrg1=vx-jrrvvrrkA7GVVj3puSF28BZ+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:01:08 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>, SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: Add support for Unisoc's UMS512

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:29 PM kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
>    In file included from arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/ums512-1h10.dts:11:
> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/ums512.dtsi:8:10: fatal error: dt-bindings/clock/sprd,ums512-clk.h: No such file or directory
>        8 | #include <dt-bindings/clock/sprd,ums512-clk.h>
>          |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    compilation terminated.
>
>
> vim +8 arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/ums512.dtsi
>
>    > 8  #include <dt-bindings/clock/sprd,ums512-clk.h>
>      9  #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>

Thanks for the report.

Unfortunately I just pulled this, and then a bunch of other things on top.

Looking at linux-next, the binding is not merged yet, which means I should
not take this one anyway.

I'll keep the first patch and revert this one.

         Arnd