Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753706Ab3HDTTj (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Aug 2013 15:19:39 -0400 Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com ([209.85.128.53]:58857 "EHLO mail-qe0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753457Ab3HDTTh (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Aug 2013 15:19:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [173.13.129.225] In-Reply-To: <20130804190132.GJ23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20130803000731.GS23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130804125346.GH23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130804183708.GI23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130804190132.GJ23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 12:19:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Build breakage due to latest ARM fixes From: Olof Johansson To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=F6nig?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2862 Lines: 65 On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:47:04AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:07:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> >> I'll look into that. Obviously, I never build nommu because it isn't >> >> >> part of the build system and the nommu platform I do have - OKI67001 - >> >> >> doesn't have mainline kernel support. (And if it did, it would not be >> >> >> DT, so I doubt it's submittable.) >> >> > >> >> > Okay, what I'm going to do is push the OKI67001 stuff into mainline >> >> > irrespective of DT or not, so that I can then add noMMU build _and_ >> >> > boot tests to my build system, which should ensure that problems >> >> > like that get detected before they're pushed upstream. >> >> >> >> That seems like a step backwards. How have !MMU changes been handled >> >> until now? Someone external has been relied on for testing? >> > >> > No, they've had no testing as far as I'm aware. noMMU never got to the >> > stage when it was merged that it had any platforms before Hiyok went >> > silent. >> > >> > The only real testing I'm aware of is when I recreated the OKI67001 >> > support a while back and got my board to boot. >> >> Uwe has been busy pushing various patches for M3/M4 support, I don't >> know how far it is from having some real hardware usable though. Uwe? >> >> > As for qemu, software emulations while nice and convenient don't >> > accurately reflect real hardware. >> >> Oh, agreed, it doesn't beat hardware-based testing but in the absence >> of hardware it's better than nothing. > > Let's summarise this then: > > "Hardware based testing is better than software testing". > "I have OKI 67001 hardware". > "I have OKI 67001 patches". > "We're going to not merge the patches but you can use software testing > instead". > > That's utterly idiotic if you ask me - and as long as you hold that view > I'm damned well totally uninterested in noMMU. > > Thanks but no thanks. If I break noMMU builds in future, so be it - I > don't give a damn about them. All I was really trying to say is that it's unfortunate to add a non-DT enabled platform now that we've done so much work towards the goal of getting rid of them. Software vs hardware testing was mostly tangential and unrelated. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/