[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023102434-dreamless-parting-35ed@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:28:40 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 000/123] 5.4.259-rc1 review
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 09:53:08AM -0600, Daniel Díaz wrote:
> Same problems on Arm 32-bits as with 5.10 and 5.15:
>
> -----8<-----
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c:249:11: error: use of undeclared identifier 'IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE'
> 249 | .flags = IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE | IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND
> | ^
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c:250:6: error: use of undeclared identifier 'IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND'
> 250 | | IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND,
> | ^
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c:251:2: error: use of undeclared identifier 'GPIOCHIP_IRQ_RESOURCE_HELPERS'
> 251 | GPIOCHIP_IRQ_RESOURCE_HELPERS,
> | ^
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c:340:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'gpio_irq_chip_set_chip' [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 340 | gpio_irq_chip_set_chip(girq, &vf610_irqchip);
> | ^
> 4 errors generated.
> make[3]: *** [/builds/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:262: drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.o] Error 1
> make[3]: Target '__build' not remade because of errors.
> make[2]: *** [/builds/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:497: drivers/gpio] Error 2
Now fixed up, thanks.
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lock.c:363:6: warning: misleading indentation; statement is not part of the previous 'if' [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> 363 | */ mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> | ^
> /builds/linux/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lock.c:357:2: note: previous statement is here
> 357 | if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_LEGACY))
> | ^
> 1 warning generated.
> ----->8-----
This can't be a new warning as no patches in this -rc touch this file,
right?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists