[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAT6-pBjUbB+Fcik27QWniK7BizvoUG+EiFvFtJ+MTdmJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:02:21 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] kbuild: Per arch/platform dtc warning levels
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:03 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 1:39 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 7:12 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This series adds support to set the dtc extra warning level on a per
> > > arch or per platform (directory really) basis.
> > >
> > > The first version of this was just a simple per directory override for
> > > Samsung platforms, but Conor asked to be able to do this for all of
> > > riscv.
> > >
> > > For merging, either I can take the whole thing or the riscv and samsung
> > > patches can go via their normal trees. The added variable will have no
> > > effect until merged with patch 2.
> > >
> > > v1:
> > > - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231116211739.3228239-1-robh@kernel.org/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> >
> >
> > There were some attempts in the past to enable W=1 in particular subsystems,
> > so here is a similar comment.
> >
> > Adding a new warning flag to W=1 is always safe without doing any compile test.
> >
> > With this series, it would not be true any more because a new warning in W=1
> > would potentially break riscv/samsung platforms.
>
> The difference here is the people potentially adding warnings are also
> the ones ensuring no warnings.
>
> > Linus requires a clean build (i.e. zero warning) when W= option is not given.
>
> Linus doesn't build any of this AFAICT. We are not always warning free
> for W=0 with dtbs.
Does it mean, you can enable all warnings by default?
>
> Rob
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists