linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: fsl-edma: integrate TCD64 support for i.MX95

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, 10 Nov 2023 16:52:49 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        imx@...ts.linux.dev, joy.zou@....com,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peng.fan@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, shenwei.wang@....com,
        vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: fsl-edma: integrate TCD64 support for
 i.MX95

On 10/11/2023 16:36, Frank Li wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 04:10:46PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/11/2023 15:59, Frank Li wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Three kbuild reports with build failures.
>>>>
>>>> I have impression this was never build-tested and reviewed internally
>>>> before posting. We had such talk ~month ago and I insisted on some
>>>> internal review prior submitting to mailing list. I did not insist on
>>>> internal building of patches, because it felt obvious, so please kindly
>>>> thoroughly build, review and test your patches internally, before using
>>>> the community for this. I am pretty sure NXP can build the code they send.
>>>
>>> This build error happen at on special uncommon platform m6800. 
>>
>> Indeed csky and alpha are special. Let's see if LKP will find other
>> platforms as well.
>>
>>> Patch is tested in imx95 arm64 platform.
>>
>> That's not enough. It's trivial to build test on riscv, ppc, x86_64 and
>> i386. Building on only one platform is not that much.
>>
>>>
>>> I have not machine to cover all platform.
>>
>> I was able to do it as a hobbyist, on my poor laptop. What is exactly
>> the problem that as hobbyist I can, but NXP cannot?
> 
> There are also difference configs. I think 'kernel test robot' is very good
> tools. If there are guide to mirror it, we can try. It is not neccesary to
> duplicate to develop a build test infrastrue.

Sorry, there is no build infrastructure here. I done it on my laptop.

> 
> The issue is not that run build test. The key problem is how to know a
> protential problem will be exist, and limited a build/config scrope.

These are all the trivial configs - allyes and allmod.

> 
> Even I have risc\ppc\x86_64 built before I submmit patch, still can't
> capture build error if I missed just one platform mc6800.

So you did not read these build reports. This is not "mc6800" platform.
This is allyes and allmod, the most obvious builds, after defconfig.

> 
> For `readq` error also depend on the configs.

Read again the build reports from LKP.

> 
> Actually, we major focus on test edmav1, .... v5 at difference platforms
> before submit patches. 


Best regards,
Krzysztof