Merging
=======
All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
and this should go via one tree.
Description
===========
Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
set .owner field.
Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
platform_driver_register").
Best regards,
Krzysztof
---
Krzysztof Kozlowski (19):
amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
coresight: cti: drop owner assignment
coresight: catu: drop owner assignment
coresight: etm3x: drop owner assignment
coresight: etm4x: drop owner assignment
coresight: funnel: drop owner assignment
coresight: replicator: drop owner assignment
coresight: etb10: drop owner assignment
coresight: stm: drop owner assignment
coresight: tmc: drop owner assignment
coresight: tpda: drop owner assignment
coresight: tpdm: drop owner assignment
coresight: tpiu: drop owner assignment
i2c: nomadik: drop owner assignment
hwrng: nomadik: drop owner assignment
dmaengine: pl330: drop owner assignment
Input: ambakmi - drop owner assignment
memory: pl353-smc: drop owner assignment
vfio: amba: drop owner assignment
drivers/amba/bus.c | 11 +++++++----
drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c | 1 -
drivers/dma/pl330.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm3x-core.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-core.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c | 1 -
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c | 1 -
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c | 1 -
drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.c | 1 -
drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c | 1 -
drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c | 1 -
include/linux/amba/bus.h | 11 +++++++++--
20 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 1fdad13606e104ff103ca19d2d660830cb36d43e
change-id: 20240326-module-owner-amba-3ebb65256be7
Best regards,
--
Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
set .owner field. The field is used by some of other kernel parts for
reference counting (try_module_get()), so it is expected that drivers
will set it.
Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in
commit 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
platform_driver_register").
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/amba/bus.c | 11 +++++++----
include/linux/amba/bus.h | 11 +++++++++--
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/amba/bus.c b/drivers/amba/bus.c
index a24c152bfaac..aba3aa95b224 100644
--- a/drivers/amba/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/amba/bus.c
@@ -488,28 +488,31 @@ static int __init amba_stub_drv_init(void)
* waiting on amba_match(). So, register a stub driver to make sure
* amba_match() is called even if no amba driver has been registered.
*/
- return amba_driver_register(&amba_proxy_drv);
+ return __amba_driver_register(&amba_proxy_drv, NULL);
}
late_initcall_sync(amba_stub_drv_init);
/**
- * amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
+ * __amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
* @drv: amba device driver structure
+ * @owner: owning module/driver
*
* Register an AMBA device driver with the Linux device model
* core. If devices pre-exist, the drivers probe function will
* be called.
*/
-int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv)
+int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv,
+ struct module *owner)
{
if (!drv->probe)
return -EINVAL;
+ drv->drv.owner = owner;
drv->drv.bus = &amba_bustype;
return driver_register(&drv->drv);
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(amba_driver_register);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__amba_driver_register);
/**
* amba_driver_unregister - remove an AMBA device driver
diff --git a/include/linux/amba/bus.h b/include/linux/amba/bus.h
index c60a6a14638c..958a55bcc708 100644
--- a/include/linux/amba/bus.h
+++ b/include/linux/amba/bus.h
@@ -112,11 +112,18 @@ extern struct bus_type amba_bustype;
#define amba_get_drvdata(d) dev_get_drvdata(&d->dev)
#define amba_set_drvdata(d,p) dev_set_drvdata(&d->dev, p)
+/*
+ * use a macro to avoid include chaining to get THIS_MODULE
+ */
+#define amba_driver_register(drv) \
+ __amba_driver_register(drv, THIS_MODULE)
+
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_AMBA
-int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *);
+int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *, struct module *);
void amba_driver_unregister(struct amba_driver *);
#else
-static inline int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv)
+static inline int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv,
+ struct module *owner)
{
return -EINVAL;
}
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Depends on first amba patch.
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c
index e805617020d0..d2b5a5718c29 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c
@@ -982,7 +982,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, cti_ids);
static struct amba_driver cti_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-cti",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
.probe = cti_probe,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c
index 3949ded0d4fa..375bd0d89b0c 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c
@@ -590,7 +590,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, catu_ids);
static struct amba_driver catu_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-catu",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
.probe = catu_probe,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
index c2ca4a02dfce..e6cd9705596c 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
@@ -2344,7 +2344,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, etm4_ids);
static struct amba_driver etm4x_amba_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-etm4x",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
.probe = etm4_probe_amba,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c
index ef1a0abfee4e..5ab1f592917a 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c
@@ -399,7 +399,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, dynamic_funnel_ids);
static struct amba_driver dynamic_funnel_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-dynamic-funnel",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.pm = &funnel_dev_pm_ops,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
index 73452d9dc13b..2bb9ba66e3c0 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c
@@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ static struct amba_driver dynamic_replicator_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-dynamic-replicator",
.pm = &replicator_dev_pm_ops,
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
.probe = dynamic_replicator_probe,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c
index 7739bc7adc44..bfca103f9f84 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c
@@ -333,7 +333,6 @@ static struct amba_id tpda_ids[] = {
static struct amba_driver tpda_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-tpda",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
.probe = tpda_probe,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c
index 29024f880fda..7dc9ea564bca 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c
@@ -236,7 +236,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, tpiu_ids);
static struct amba_driver tpiu_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-tpiu",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.pm = &tpiu_dev_pm_ops,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Depends on first amba patch.
---
drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c
index a2009fc4ad3c..f2a2aa7a531c 100644
--- a/drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c
+++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c
@@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, nmk_rng_ids);
static struct amba_driver nmk_rng_driver = {
.drv = {
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.name = "rng",
},
.probe = nmk_rng_probe,
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Depends on first amba patch.
---
drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
index 485c6f9161a9..ff8ff8480968 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
@@ -134,7 +134,6 @@ static struct amba_driver vfio_amba_driver = {
.id_table = vfio_amba_ids,
.drv = {
.name = "vfio-amba",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
},
.driver_managed_dma = true,
};
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c
index 974d37e5f94c..15b52358965c 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c
@@ -954,7 +954,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, stm_ids);
static struct amba_driver stm_driver = {
.drv = {
.name = "coresight-stm",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.pm = &stm_dev_pm_ops,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
},
--
2.34.1
Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
As memory controllers maintainer: this has my Ack. :)
Depends on first amba patch.
---
drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c b/drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c
index 48540817e046..56e51737c81f 100644
--- a/drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c
+++ b/drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c
@@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(amba, pl353_ids);
static struct amba_driver pl353_smc_driver = {
.drv = {
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.name = "pl353-smc",
.pm = &pl353_smc_dev_pm_ops,
},
--
2.34.1
On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof
>
> On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Merging
>> =======
>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>> and this should go via one tree.
>
> Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull
I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell.
> them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight
> tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly).
>
You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst
case it is solveable: just drop .owner.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
[email protected] wrote on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:48 +0100:
> Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Miquèl
On 27/03/2024 05:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof
>>
>> On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Merging
>>> =======
>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>
>> Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull
>
> I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell.
>
>> them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight
>> tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly).
>>
>
> You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst
Yes.
> case it is solveable: just drop .owner.
Or, we could merge the CoreSight changes (as they are really not
affected by the problem this series is trying to address) after the
base changes land in AMBA, via the CoreSight tree.
Suzuki
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Hi Krzysztof,
...
> /**
> - * amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
> + * __amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
> * @drv: amba device driver structure
> + * @owner: owning module/driver
> *
> * Register an AMBA device driver with the Linux device model
> * core. If devices pre-exist, the drivers probe function will
> * be called.
> */
> -int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv)
> +int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv,
...
> +/*
> + * use a macro to avoid include chaining to get THIS_MODULE
> + */
Should the documentation be moved here? Well... I don't see any
documentation linking this file yet, but in case it comes we want
documented amba_driver_register() rather than
__amba_driver_register().
Andi
> +#define amba_driver_register(drv) \
> + __amba_driver_register(drv, THIS_MODULE)
> +
On 27/03/2024 21:33, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> ...
>
>> /**
>> - * amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
>> + * __amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
>> * @drv: amba device driver structure
>> + * @owner: owning module/driver
>> *
>> * Register an AMBA device driver with the Linux device model
>> * core. If devices pre-exist, the drivers probe function will
>> * be called.
>> */
>> -int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv)
>> +int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv,
>
> ...
>
>> +/*
>> + * use a macro to avoid include chaining to get THIS_MODULE
>> + */
>
> Should the documentation be moved here? Well... I don't see any
> documentation linking this file yet, but in case it comes we want
> documented amba_driver_register() rather than
> __amba_driver_register().
>
That's just a wrapper, not API... why would we care to have kerneldoc
for it?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi,
On 3/26/24 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Amba bus core already sets owner, so driver does not need to.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Depends on first amba patch.
> ---
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
> index 485c6f9161a9..ff8ff8480968 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,6 @@ static struct amba_driver vfio_amba_driver = {
> .id_table = vfio_amba_ids,
> .drv = {
> .name = "vfio-amba",
> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> },
> .driver_managed_dma = true,
> };
>
>
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
Thanks
Eric
Hi Krzysztof,
> >> /**
> >> - * amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
> >> + * __amba_driver_register - register an AMBA device driver
> >> * @drv: amba device driver structure
> >> + * @owner: owning module/driver
> >> *
> >> * Register an AMBA device driver with the Linux device model
> >> * core. If devices pre-exist, the drivers probe function will
> >> * be called.
> >> */
> >> -int amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv)
> >> +int __amba_driver_register(struct amba_driver *drv,
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +/*
> >> + * use a macro to avoid include chaining to get THIS_MODULE
> >> + */
> >
> > Should the documentation be moved here? Well... I don't see any
> > documentation linking this file yet, but in case it comes we want
> > documented amba_driver_register() rather than
> > __amba_driver_register().
> >
>
> That's just a wrapper, not API... why would we care to have kerneldoc
> for it?
Because everyone should use the wrapper while the real function
will be used only once or twice.
I see also that this is a common practice which I don't surely
like.
In any case there is no documentation exported for AMBA so that
this discussion does not bring any tangible benefit.
So that, considering that it's a good improvement,
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <[email protected]>
Andi
On 27/03/2024 10:22, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 05:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof
>>>
>>> On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Merging
>>>> =======
>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>
>>> Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull
>>
>> I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell.
>>
>>> them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight
>>> tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly).
>>>
>>
>> You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst
>
> Yes.
>
>> case it is solveable: just drop .owner.
>
> Or, we could merge the CoreSight changes (as they are really not
> affected by the problem this series is trying to address) after the
> base changes land in AMBA, via the CoreSight tree.
I'll provide you a stable branch to fetch. I was defeated by Russell's
patch tracking system.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Merging
> =======
> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
> and this should go via one tree.
>
> Description
> ===========
> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
> set .owner field.
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
(no commit info)
[02/19] coresight: cti: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[03/19] coresight: catu: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[04/19] coresight: etm3x: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[05/19] coresight: etm4x: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[06/19] coresight: funnel: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[07/19] coresight: replicator: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[08/19] coresight: etb10: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[09/19] coresight: stm: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[10/19] coresight: tmc: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[11/19] coresight: tpda: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[12/19] coresight: tpdm: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[13/19] coresight: tpiu: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[14/19] i2c: nomadik: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[15/19] hwrng: nomadik: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[16/19] dmaengine: pl330: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[17/19] Input: ambakmi - drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[18/19] memory: pl353-smc: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
[19/19] vfio: amba: drop owner assignment
(no commit info)
Best regards,
--
Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Merging
> > =======
> > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
> > and this should go via one tree.
> >
> > Description
> > ===========
> > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
> > set .owner field.
> >
> > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
> > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
> > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
> > platform_driver_register").
> >
> > Best regards,
>
> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
> standard patches.
Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
Eh? There is no such logic in there.
> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
> (!!!) interface.
Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that
generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an
email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to
the standard email that git format-patch generates.
The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion:
tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears.
Git even has support to do this.
git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo"
Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me
the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it
keeps on being useful to have.)
> That's the response:
> -------------
> Your patch has not been logged because:
>
> Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing
> your patch.
>
>
> Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or
> "---".
>
> Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect
> Signed-off-by lines:
>
> - author signoff <[email protected]> is missing.
>
> Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11
> for details on signing off patches.
Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser
through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly.
I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something
pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line.
Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email
the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on
debugging to capture the problem email?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:56:17AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Merging
> > > =======
> > > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
> > > and this should go via one tree.
> > >
> > > Description
> > > ===========
> > > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
> > > set .owner field.
> > >
> > > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
> > > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
> > > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
> > > platform_driver_register").
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> >
> > I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
> > is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
> > maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
> > standard patches.
>
> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
>
> > First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
>
> Eh? There is no such logic in there.
>
> > Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
> > (!!!) interface.
>
> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
>
> The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that
> generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an
> email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to
> the standard email that git format-patch generates.
>
> The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion:
> tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears.
> Git even has support to do this.
>
> git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo"
>
> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
> because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me
> the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it
> keeps on being useful to have.)
>
> > That's the response:
> > -------------
> > Your patch has not been logged because:
> >
> > Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing
> > your patch.
> >
> >
> > Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or
> > "---".
> >
> > Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect
> > Signed-off-by lines:
> >
> > - author signoff <[email protected]> is missing.
> >
> > Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11
> > for details on signing off patches.
>
> Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser
> through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly.
> I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something
> pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line.
>
> Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email
> the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on
> debugging to capture the problem email?
... and I'll also point out one of the biggest problems is people.
People who think it's more complex than it is, or who can't read
instructions.
For example, trying to tell people to use the standard format subject
line:
[PATCH ...] blah
has proven to be hopeless - unless one states to them the exact
sequence of keys on their keyboard to press - yes, it *really* takes
that patronising level to get everyone to understand. If one tries to
do it any other way, then you get stuff like:
"[PATCH ...] ..."
with the quotes. Or some other stupid variation.
The patch system is as forgiving as possible. It takes standard git
formatted patches (with the exception of wanting an additional tag).
It is possible that bugs creep in - particularly when Debian updates
get applied and change the way Perl works, but I don't think that's
what has happened with your situation.
I _guess_ you're putting the entire email-like output from git
format-patch as the patch file. That won't work - that isn't a "patch
file", that is an email/email template, and the patch system will
attempt to parse that as the patch itself.
I suppose you term "patch" to be the email as well, rather than what
I interpret it to be, which is only the output of "diff" - call me
old fashioned but that's what a patch file used to be before the
waters got muddied by git "patch files".
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On 02/04/2024 11:06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:56:17AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Merging
>>>> =======
>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>>
>>>> Description
>>>> ===========
>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>>> set .owner field.
>>>>
>>>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
>>>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
>>>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
>>>> platform_driver_register").
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
>>> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
>>> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
>>> standard patches.
>>
>> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
>>
>>> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
>>
>> Eh? There is no such logic in there.
>>
>>> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
>>> (!!!) interface.
>>
>> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
>> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
>> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
>> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
>> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
>>
>> The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that
>> generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an
>> email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to
>> the standard email that git format-patch generates.
>>
>> The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion:
>> tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears.
>> Git even has support to do this.
>>
>> git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo"
>>
>> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
>> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
>> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
>> because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me
>> the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it
>> keeps on being useful to have.)
>>
>>> That's the response:
>>> -------------
>>> Your patch has not been logged because:
>>>
>>> Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing
>>> your patch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or
>>> "---".
>>>
>>> Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect
>>> Signed-off-by lines:
>>>
>>> - author signoff <[email protected]> is missing.
>>>
>>> Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11
>>> for details on signing off patches.
>>
>> Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser
>> through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly.
>> I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something
>> pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line.
>>
>> Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email
>> the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on
>> debugging to capture the problem email?
>
> ... and I'll also point out one of the biggest problems is people.
> People who think it's more complex than it is, or who can't read
> instructions.
We all read submitting-patches instructions (and many more). A need to
learn one more set of instructions for one more process leads to people
needing to learn 100 different processes for 100 different subsystems.
That's not the way how people should be contributing to Linux kernel.
>
> For example, trying to tell people to use the standard format subject
> line:
>
> [PATCH ...] blah
>
> has proven to be hopeless - unless one states to them the exact
> sequence of keys on their keyboard to press - yes, it *really* takes
> that patronising level to get everyone to understand. If one tries to
> do it any other way, then you get stuff like:
>
> "[PATCH ...] ..."
>
> with the quotes. Or some other stupid variation.
>
> The patch system is as forgiving as possible. It takes standard git
> formatted patches (with the exception of wanting an additional tag).
The additional tag about kernel version is redundant and not helping
anyone. I doubt you apply patches on top of linux-next or top of
previous release (e.g. v6.8-rc1). Almost every maintainer applies on top
of current RC, so v6.9-rc1 currently, thus version is just unnecessary
obstacle.
>
> It is possible that bugs creep in - particularly when Debian updates
> get applied and change the way Perl works, but I don't think that's
> what has happened with your situation.
>
> I _guess_ you're putting the entire email-like output from git
> format-patch as the patch file. That won't work - that isn't a "patch
> file", that is an email/email template, and the patch system will
> attempt to parse that as the patch itself.
Yes, that's what every sane person's workflow is. git format-patch -19
(cover letter goes from branch description).
>
> I suppose you term "patch" to be the email as well, rather than what
> I interpret it to be, which is only the output of "diff" - call me
> old fashioned but that's what a patch file used to be before the
> waters got muddied by git "patch files".
Well, world is now using git as a standard. It's true there is quilt out
there, but even Andrew I think is going slowly towards git in some parts
of his workflow.
But then even Andrew accepted standard patch from the mailing lists. No
need for any other step, no need for any double submission (one public,
second to patches@armlinux or webform) with any other requirement.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 10:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> Merging
> >>> =======
> >>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
> >>> and this should go via one tree.
> >>>
> >>> Description
> >>> ===========
> >>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
> >>> set .owner field.
> >>>
> >>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
> >>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
> >>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
> >>> platform_driver_register").
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>
> >> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
> >> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
> >> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
> >> standard patches.
> >
> > Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
> >
> >> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
> >
> > Eh? There is no such logic in there.
>
> In the web system there is - read the error message I pasted. It wants
> another SoB from the unrelated email account, the one used purely for
> registering in some web system, not the one used for code handling.
So you're disagreeing with the author of this system. Of course you
know best, you know the code behind it. I have only one word for
that kind of attitude: idiotic.
> >> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
> >> (!!!) interface.
> >
> > Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
> > failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
> > you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
>
> The email one requires additional steps, so this is unnecessary work
> confusing submitters. I submit dozens or hundreds of patches every
> release cycle. That's the only subsystem which is odd to use.
Lots of people use it without issue. People even send patches to the
mailing list copied to the patch system.
> > the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
> > web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
>
> No, they are not. None of my emails are screwed by my company system.
So why are you using the web interface?
> > Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
> > and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
> > tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
>
> Which is absolutely ridiculous now. Expecting submitters to adhere to
> some rule for 20 year old kernel is not reasonable.
You aren't listening to me, so it's pointless discussing this further.
You have a bee in your bonet and you want to make it a huge issue
rather than work constructively. Sorry but no, I'm not going to continue
this confrontational exchange.
You clearly don't want to understand anything.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On 02/04/2024 11:57, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/04/2024 10:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> Merging
>>>>> =======
>>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Description
>>>>> ===========
>>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>>>> set .owner field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
>>>>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
>>>>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
>>>>> platform_driver_register").
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
>>>> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
>>>> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
>>>> standard patches.
>>>
>>> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
>>>
>>>> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
>>>
>>> Eh? There is no such logic in there.
>>
>> In the web system there is - read the error message I pasted. It wants
>> another SoB from the unrelated email account, the one used purely for
>> registering in some web system, not the one used for code handling.
>
> So you're disagreeing with the author of this system. Of course you
> know best, you know the code behind it. I have only one word for
> that kind of attitude: idiotic.
I pasted you the error which the system reported to me.
>
>>>> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
>>>> (!!!) interface.
>>>
>>> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
>>> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
>>> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
>>
>> The email one requires additional steps, so this is unnecessary work
>> confusing submitters. I submit dozens or hundreds of patches every
>> release cycle. That's the only subsystem which is odd to use.
>
> Lots of people use it without issue. People even send patches to the
> mailing list copied to the patch system.
>
I will try that.
>>> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
>>> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
>>
>> No, they are not. None of my emails are screwed by my company system.
>
> So why are you using the web interface?
>
>>> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
>>> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
>>> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
>>
>> Which is absolutely ridiculous now. Expecting submitters to adhere to
>> some rule for 20 year old kernel is not reasonable.
>
> You aren't listening to me, so it's pointless discussing this further.
> You have a bee in your bonet and you want to make it a huge issue
Well, all my comments were about the actual topic - patch submission
process made for ARM subsystem by you. Your replies include comments
about me and what do I have in my bonet.
You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header
requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I
brought that argument - it is redundant and it is an obstacle for the
contributor.
> rather than work constructively. Sorry but no, I'm not going to continue
> this confrontational exchange.
>
> You clearly don't want to understand anything.
I understood a lot, although I did not answer under every point "I
understand this part, I disagree here".
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:04:07PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header
> requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I
So add inability to read to your failings, because I _did_ state that
_I_ still _use_ it.
End of discussion, I'm not engaging with you in your current
confrontational mood where you clearly don't want to understand
anything (or intentionally misinterpreting) I'm writing - making it
pointless to continue.
I even think you're intentionally misinterpreting the responses
from the patch system.
Overall, I can only draw the conclusion that you are playing politics
and want the patch system gone, and you want me to use "standard"
tooling that will _increase_ the amount of effort I need to put in.
No, that's not going to happen.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:12:36AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:04:07PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header
> > requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I
>
> So add inability to read to your failings, because I _did_ state that
> _I_ still _use_ it.
>
> End of discussion, I'm not engaging with you in your current
> confrontational mood where you clearly don't want to understand
> anything (or intentionally misinterpreting) I'm writing - making it
> pointless to continue.
>
> I even think you're intentionally misinterpreting the responses
> from the patch system.
>
> Overall, I can only draw the conclusion that you are playing politics
> and want the patch system gone, and you want me to use "standard"
> tooling that will _increase_ the amount of effort I need to put in.
> No, that's not going to happen.
... and this is your final chance to change to a constructive discourse,
if not, you are going to end up in my kill file. Whether you do is
entirely up to the tone of your reply to this email.
I am always more than willing to work with a submitter to diagnose
what the problem is, but the tone of your emails make me want to
ignore you.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
+ Greg
Hi Krzysztof,
On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Merging
>>> =======
>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>
>>> Description
>>> ===========
>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>> set .owner field.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
>> (no commit info)
>
> Patchset applied here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba
How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/,
do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight
tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet,
but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the
conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the
changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement.
Kind regards
Suzuki
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> + Greg
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Merging
>>>> =======
>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>>
>>>> Description
>>>> ===========
>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>>> set .owner field.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>
>>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
>>> (no commit info)
>>
>> Patchset applied here:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba
>
> How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/,
> do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight
> tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet,
> but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the
> conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the
> changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement.
I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up.
I propose you take entire set then.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:29:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > + Greg
> >
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> Merging
> >>>> =======
> >>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
> >>>> and this should go via one tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Description
> >>>> ===========
> >>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
> >>>> set .owner field.
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Applied, thanks!
> >>>
> >>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
> >>> (no commit info)
> >>
> >> Patchset applied here:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba
> >
> > How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/,
> > do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight
> > tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet,
> > but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the
> > conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the
> > changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement.
>
> I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up.
>
> I propose you take entire set then.
You are again being, IMHO, abrasive with your attitude. So far, every
interaction with you has been abrasive and bordering on abusive.
You haven't asked me whether I will take them. I will - just not at the
moment because
I HAVE MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS LAST WEEK AND THIS WEEK WHICH MEAN I AM
NOT SPENDING ALL MY TIME ON THE KERNEL.
Have some bloody patience rather than behaving in your standard
objectionable manner.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On 17/04/2024 15:50, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:29:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> + Greg
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> Merging
>>>>>> =======
>>>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description
>>>>>> ===========
>>>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>>>>> set .owner field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register()
>>>>> (no commit info)
>>>>
>>>> Patchset applied here:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba
>>>
>>> How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/,
>>> do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight
>>> tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet,
>>> but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the
>>> conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the
>>> changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement.
>>
>> I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up.
>>
>> I propose you take entire set then.
>
> You are again being, IMHO, abrasive with your attitude. So far, every
> interaction with you has been abrasive and bordering on abusive.
>
> You haven't asked me whether I will take them. I will - just not at the
> moment because
Thanks for confirming, I wanted to ping you because there was no feedback.
Can you provide stable tag for coresight tree?
Best regards,
Krzysztof