linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nvmem tree

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20be4ac4-42c0-422c-bcd4-8d49527f217f@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:58:32 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>,
 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the nvmem tree



On 8/19/25 2:54 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 19. August 2025, 13:22:04 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Srinivas Kandagatla:
>> On 8/19/25 12:14 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am Dienstag, 19. August 2025, 05:40:39 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
>>>> After merging the nvmem tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>>>> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>>>>
>>>> In file included from drivers/nvmem/qnap-mcu-eeprom.c:12:
>>>> include/linux/mfd/qnap-mcu.h:13:9: error: unknown type name 'u32'
>>>>    13 |         u32 baud_rate;
>>>>       |         ^~~
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Caused by commit
>>>>
>>>>   117c3f3014a9 ("nvmem: add driver for the eeprom in qnap-mcu controllers")
>>>>
>>>> I have used the nvmem tree from next-20250818 for today.
>>>
>>> bah, sorry about messing this up.
>>>
>>> While I encountered this, and fixed that with the pending
>>>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250804130726.3180806-2-heiko@sntech.de/
>>>
>>> I completely missed that the nvmem driver applied alone would break
>>> without that change :-( .
>>
>> I have now reverted this change, @Heiko Please let me know if you want
>> to take this to mfd tree or vice-versa.
> 
> ok, no worries :-) .
> 
> I guess for now, I'll just make sure the header patch gets somewhere.
> And I guess I'll re-try the nvmem driver once that has happened,
> probably for the next cycle.

I don't think we need to wait till next cycle, Lee can pick up this
patch via mfd tree if header change is going via mfd tree.


--srini

> 
> Creating dependencies between trees somehow does sound like
> more hassle so I'll just wait for a stable base, to not cause more
> breakage :-)
> 
> 
> Heiko
> 
>