Hi all,
Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) produced these warnings:
drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c: In function 'twl4030_sih_do_edge':
drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:571: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spin_lock_irq' from incompatible pointer type
include/linux/spinlock.h:304: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'
drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:576: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spin_unlock_irq' from incompatible pointer type
include/linux/spinlock.h:329: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'
Introduced by commit 239007b8440abff689632f50cdf0f2b9e895b534 ("genirq:
Convert irq_desc.lock to raw_spinlock"). I guess that this file was
missed in the conversion.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig) produced these warnings:
>
> drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c: In function 'twl4030_sih_do_edge':
> drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:571: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spin_lock_irq' from incompatible pointer type
> include/linux/spinlock.h:304: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'
> drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:576: warning: passing argument 1 of 'spin_unlock_irq' from incompatible pointer type
> include/linux/spinlock.h:329: note: expected 'struct spinlock_t *' but argument is of type 'struct raw_spinlock_t *'
>
> Introduced by commit 239007b8440abff689632f50cdf0f2b9e895b534 ("genirq:
> Convert irq_desc.lock to raw_spinlock"). I guess that this file was
> missed in the conversion.
Ok, I tested and committed the other warning you pointed out, but this one
I can't test since I no longer do powerpc builds. I assume the trivial fix
below fixes it, but without testing I won't be committing it.
Linus
---
drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c
index 20d29ba..9df9a5a 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c
@@ -568,12 +568,12 @@ static void twl4030_sih_do_edge(struct work_struct *work)
bytes[byte] &= ~(0x03 << off);
- spin_lock_irq(&d->lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&d->lock);
if (d->status & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING)
bytes[byte] |= BIT(off + 1);
if (d->status & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING)
bytes[byte] |= BIT(off + 0);
- spin_unlock_irq(&d->lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&d->lock);
edge_change &= ~BIT(i);
}
Hi Linus,
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:50:39 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ok, I tested and committed the other warning you pointed out, but this one
> I can't test since I no longer do powerpc builds. I assume the trivial fix
> below fixes it, but without testing I won't be committing it.
I have built drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.o the same way as before but after
applying your patch and the warnings are fixed. I do not have the
hardware and so cannot do a runtime test.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> I have built drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.o the same way as before but after
> applying your patch and the warnings are fixed. I do not have the
> hardware and so cannot do a runtime test.
Ok, committed as "Reported-and-compile-tested-by:" you.
Somebody should probably test it on real hardware, but I doubt the patch
makes anything worse, and it _probably_ makes things better.
Linus
Hi Linus,
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:32:11 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > I have built drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.o the same way as before but after
> > applying your patch and the warnings are fixed. I do not have the
> > hardware and so cannot do a runtime test.
>
> Ok, committed as "Reported-and-compile-tested-by:" you.
Thanks.
> Somebody should probably test it on real hardware, but I doubt the patch
> makes anything worse, and it _probably_ makes things better.
With any luck :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Stephen,Linus,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 7:21 AM
> To: Linus Torvalds
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Thomas Gleixner; Samuel Ortiz; Tony
> Lindgren; Shilimkar, Santosh; Krishnamoorthy, Balaji T; Nayak, Rajendra
> Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build warnings
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:32:11 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > I have built drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.o the same way as before but after
> > > applying your patch and the warnings are fixed. I do not have the
> > > hardware and so cannot do a runtime test.
> >
> > Ok, committed as "Reported-and-compile-tested-by:" you.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Somebody should probably test it on real hardware, but I doubt the patch
> > makes anything worse, and it _probably_ makes things better.
>
> With any luck :-)
Have tested this patch on OMAP3430 and works as expected.
Regards,
Santosh
Hi Linus,
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 05:32:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > I have built drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.o the same way as before but after
> > applying your patch and the warnings are fixed. I do not have the
> > hardware and so cannot do a runtime test.
>
> Ok, committed as "Reported-and-compile-tested-by:" you.
>
> Somebody should probably test it on real hardware, but I doubt the patch
> makes anything worse, and it _probably_ makes things better.
Thanks for the fix.
I got the same fix from Felipe and Tony during the holidays, so I assume they
tested it on real hardware.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/