Hi Arnd,
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:32 PM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> This function has no prototype and no callers:
>
> arm/mach-imx/cpu-imx25.c:43:5: error: no previous prototype for 'mx25_revision' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Martin Kaiser sent a patch adding a user for this function:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
It would be better to apply Martin's patch instead of removing mx25_revision().
Thanks
On Wed, May 17, 2023, at 01:34, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:32 PM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>>
>> This function has no prototype and no callers:
>>
>> arm/mach-imx/cpu-imx25.c:43:5: error: no previous prototype for 'mx25_revision' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> Martin Kaiser sent a patch adding a user for this function:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
>
> It would be better to apply Martin's patch instead of removing mx25_revision().
I think either way is ok to address the warning. If we wanted to do this
properly, the mx{25,27,31,35,5}_revision functions could all be removed
and the logic hooked up to imx_set_soc_revision() in the same way that
they already use mxc_set_cpu_type() for drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx.c.
I'll leave it up to you, if you want to merge Martin's patches or
a replacement for the soc-imx driver through the imx tree for 6.5,
I'll drop my patch from this series, otherwise I'll keep it for now
and we can still do it better at later point.
Arnd
Thus wrote Arnd Bergmann ([email protected]):
> I think either way is ok to address the warning. If we wanted to do this
> properly, the mx{25,27,31,35,5}_revision functions could all be removed
> and the logic hooked up to imx_set_soc_revision() in the same way that
> they already use mxc_set_cpu_type() for drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx.c.
> I'll leave it up to you, if you want to merge Martin's patches or
> a replacement for the soc-imx driver through the imx tree for 6.5,
> I'll drop my patch from this series, otherwise I'll keep it for now
> and we can still do it better at later point.
I suggest we merge my patches for imx25 first and then clean up all the
older imx families to use the common functions.
I've just rebased the patches against today's linux-next. My understanding
is that they have to go through the clk tree.
Thanks,
Martin
On Wed, May 17, 2023, at 17:45, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Arnd Bergmann ([email protected]):
>
>> I think either way is ok to address the warning. If we wanted to do this
>> properly, the mx{25,27,31,35,5}_revision functions could all be removed
>> and the logic hooked up to imx_set_soc_revision() in the same way that
>> they already use mxc_set_cpu_type() for drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx.c.
>
>> I'll leave it up to you, if you want to merge Martin's patches or
>> a replacement for the soc-imx driver through the imx tree for 6.5,
>> I'll drop my patch from this series, otherwise I'll keep it for now
>> and we can still do it better at later point.
>
> I suggest we merge my patches for imx25 first and then clean up all the
> older imx families to use the common functions.
>
> I've just rebased the patches against today's linux-next. My understanding
> is that they have to go through the clk tree.
This never happened, right? I see that mx25_revision() is still in the
tree without any users, so I can't easily turn on the warning by default
yet. Should I just go ahead and remove it for 5.6, or do you expect to
have your patch ready in time for the merge window?
Arnd
Hi Arnd,
Arnd Bergmann ([email protected]) wrote:
> >> I'll leave it up to you, if you want to merge Martin's patches or
> >> a replacement for the soc-imx driver through the imx tree for 6.5,
> >> I'll drop my patch from this series, otherwise I'll keep it for now
> >> and we can still do it better at later point.
> > I suggest we merge my patches for imx25 first and then clean up all the
> > older imx families to use the common functions.
> > I've just rebased the patches against today's linux-next. My understanding
> > is that they have to go through the clk tree.
> This never happened, right? I see that mx25_revision() is still in the
> tree without any users, so I can't easily turn on the warning by default
> yet. Should I just go ahead and remove it for 5.6, or do you expect to
> have your patch ready in time for the merge window?
sorry for delaying your series.
So far, there's been no response to my patches from the clk maintainers.
Let me resend the patches one final time. If we don't hear anything back
within a week or so, feel free to remove mx25_revision (and probably all
of arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu-imx25.c) for the 6.6 merge window.
Thanks,
Martin