| Message ID | 20101008113424.2249c2df@debxo |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem to be any > reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with userspace being able > to potentially use the structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. > > Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > >> >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem to be any >> reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with userspace being able >> to potentially use the structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree so it is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it up once Andres reposts the series. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> >> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 >> >>> >>> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem to be any >>> reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with userspace being able >>> to potentially use the structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> >> >> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree so it > is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it up once > Andres reposts the series. Yep, that makes sense. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > wrote: > > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > > >> > >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem > >> to be any reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with > >> userspace being able to potentially use the structures in there. > >> So, don't export it anymore. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree so it > is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it up once > Andres reposts the series. > > g. Ok, I sent a new version of the phandle stuff (which was easier than expected, and doesn't affect any other patches). So to summarize, what's pending is: 1- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242041/ (sparc: stop exporting openprom.h header) Acked by Dave 2- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242601/ ([v3] sparc: convert various prom_* functions to use phandle) Acked by Dave 3- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141011/ (sparc: break out some PROM device-tree building code out into drivers/of) Acked by Dave 4- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141021/ (sparc: make drivers/of/pdt.c no longer sparc-only) Acked by Dave 5- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141031/ (of: no longer call prom_ functions directly; use an ops structure) Acked by Dave 6- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141041/ (of: add of_pdt namespace to pdt code) Acked by Dave 7- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141051/ (of: add package-to-path support to pdt) 8- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141071/ (x86: OLPC: add OLPC device-tree support) The make-of-build-on-x86 stuff is already in your tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 > Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > wrote: > > > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > > > > >> > > >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem > > >> to be any reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with > > >> userspace being able to potentially use the structures in there. > > >> So, don't export it anymore. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree so it > > is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it up once > > Andres reposts the series. > > > > g. > > Ok, I sent a new version of the phandle stuff (which was easier than > expected, and doesn't affect any other patches). > > So to summarize, what's pending is: > > 1- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242041/ (sparc: stop exporting > openprom.h header) > Acked by Dave > > 2- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242601/ ([v3] sparc: convert > various prom_* functions to use phandle) > Acked by Dave > > 3- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141011/ (sparc: break out some > PROM device-tree building code out into drivers/of) > Acked by Dave > > 4- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141021/ (sparc: make > drivers/of/pdt.c no longer sparc-only) > Acked by Dave > > 5- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141031/ (of: no longer call prom_ > functions directly; use an ops structure) > Acked by Dave > > 6- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141041/ (of: add > of_pdt namespace to pdt code) > Acked by Dave > > 7- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141051/ (of: add package-to-path > support to pdt) I've picked up 1-7 and am build testing now. > 8- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141071/ (x86: OLPC: add OLPC > device-tree support) I'm not happy about the /proc/devicetree stuff in this patch. I would rather see the proc_device_tree_init() call moved to initcall time so that the need for an of_pdt_init_devicetree() hook goes away, but there are a number of gotchas for dynamic tree users that I need to investigate. Anyway, I'll get 1-7 tested and into linux-next while I think about patch 8. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 02:51:43 -0600 Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 > > Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller > > > <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > > > > > > >> > > > >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't > > > >> seem to be any reason for it currently, and it creates > > > >> headaches with userspace being able to potentially use the > > > >> structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > > > > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree > > > so it is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it > > > up once Andres reposts the series. > > > > > > g. > > > > Ok, I sent a new version of the phandle stuff (which was easier than > > expected, and doesn't affect any other patches). > > > > So to summarize, what's pending is: > > > > 1- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242041/ (sparc: stop exporting > > openprom.h header) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 2- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242601/ ([v3] sparc: convert > > various prom_* functions to use phandle) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 3- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141011/ (sparc: break out some > > PROM device-tree building code out into drivers/of) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 4- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141021/ (sparc: make > > drivers/of/pdt.c no longer sparc-only) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 5- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141031/ (of: no longer call > > prom_ functions directly; use an ops structure) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 6- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141041/ (of: add > > of_pdt namespace to pdt code) > > Acked by Dave > > > > 7- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141051/ (of: add > > package-to-path support to pdt) > > I've picked up 1-7 and am build testing now. > > > 8- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141071/ (x86: OLPC: add OLPC > > device-tree support) > > I'm not happy about the /proc/devicetree stuff in this patch. I would > rather see the proc_device_tree_init() call moved to initcall time > so that the need for an of_pdt_init_devicetree() hook goes away, but > there are a number of gotchas for dynamic tree users that I need to > investigate. Anyway, I'll get 1-7 tested and into linux-next while I > think about patch 8. > I'm failing to see why it's a problem to have the hook (which could just as easily be a generic proc_root_init_prepare hook called from proc_root_init(), allowing usage by various other subsystems), but okay. I'm not that familiar w/ the dynamic tree stuff; do you imagine this being an invasive change, or will it be as simple as just deferring the init call? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 01:48:08PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 02:51:43 -0600 > Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:00:25 -0600 > > > Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, David Miller > > > > <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > > From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:34:24 -0700 > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't > > > > >> seem to be any reason for it currently, and it creates > > > > >> headaches with userspace being able to potentially use the > > > > >> structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > > > > > > > I suppose it makes sense for me to pick this one up into my tree > > > > so it is grouped with the rest of the pdt patches. I'll pick it > > > > up once Andres reposts the series. > > > > > > > > g. > > > > > > Ok, I sent a new version of the phandle stuff (which was easier than > > > expected, and doesn't affect any other patches). > > > > > > So to summarize, what's pending is: > > > > > > 1- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242041/ (sparc: stop exporting > > > openprom.h header) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 2- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/242601/ ([v3] sparc: convert > > > various prom_* functions to use phandle) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 3- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141011/ (sparc: break out some > > > PROM device-tree building code out into drivers/of) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 4- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141021/ (sparc: make > > > drivers/of/pdt.c no longer sparc-only) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 5- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141031/ (of: no longer call > > > prom_ functions directly; use an ops structure) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 6- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141041/ (of: add > > > of_pdt namespace to pdt code) > > > Acked by Dave > > > > > > 7- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141051/ (of: add > > > package-to-path support to pdt) > > > > I've picked up 1-7 and am build testing now. Hmmm, series fails to build on sparc32, and doesn't appear to be fully bisectable. Patches 1-3 compile file. Adding patch 4 gives the following build error. Missing include perhaps? /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c: In function 'build_one_prop': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:80: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_firstprop' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:80: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:82: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_nextprop' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:82: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:92: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_getproplen' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:99: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_getproperty' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c: In function 'prom_build_tree': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:213: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_getchild' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:218: error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_getsibling' distcc[16086] ERROR: compile /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c on localhost failed make[3]: *** [drivers/of/pdt.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [drivers/of] Error 2 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... And after applying patch 5, I get this instead: cc1: warnings being treated as errors /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c: In function 'prom_common_nextprop': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c:144: error: passing argument 2 of 'prom_nextprop' discards qualifiers from pointer target type /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_32.h:227: note: expected 'char *' but argument is of type 'const char *' make[2]: *** [arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... And applying the subsequent patches fails with the same error. Sparc64 builds fine with the entire stack applied, but I haven't bisected and I suspect that patch 4 will still fail there. So, I'll leave patches 1-3 in my tree, and drop 4-7 until you get it sorted out. > > > 8- https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/141071/ (x86: OLPC: add OLPC > > > device-tree support) > > > > I'm not happy about the /proc/devicetree stuff in this patch. I would > > rather see the proc_device_tree_init() call moved to initcall time > > so that the need for an of_pdt_init_devicetree() hook goes away, but > > there are a number of gotchas for dynamic tree users that I need to > > investigate. Anyway, I'll get 1-7 tested and into linux-next while I > > think about patch 8. > > > > I'm failing to see why it's a problem to have the hook (which could > just as easily be a generic proc_root_init_prepare hook called from > proc_root_init(), allowing usage by various other subsystems), but > okay. I'm not a fan of global hooks and I personally feel that having to resort to them is usually failure in architecture. That said, I'm beginning to worry that the alternative will require a non-trivial refactoring of the proc devicetree code. > I'm not that familiar w/ the dynamic tree stuff; do you imagine this > being an invasive change, or will it be as simple as just deferring the > init call? I had hoped that it would be as simple as deferring the init call, but I started pulling at that thread, and I suspect the proc devicetree has some rather important ordering issues that I don't fully appreciate yet. I also suspect that some of the logic to keep the live tree and the proc tree synchronized is scattered outside of the core OF code. Blech. I'm still investigating, but please include patch 8 when you repost to resolve the build issue. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:13:24 -0600 Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 01:48:08PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 02:51:43 -0600 > > Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote: > > [...] > Hmmm, series fails to build on sparc32, and doesn't appear to be > fully bisectable. Patches 1-3 compile file. Adding patch 4 gives Thanks for testing! > the following build error. Missing include perhaps? > > /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c: In function > 'build_one_prop': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:80: > error: implicit declaration of function > 'prom_firstprop' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:80: > warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a > cast /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:82: error: > implicit declaration of function > 'prom_nextprop' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:82: > warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a > cast /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:92: error: > implicit declaration of function > 'prom_getproplen' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:99: > error: implicit declaration of function > 'prom_getproperty' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c: In > function > 'prom_build_tree': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:213: > error: implicit declaration of function > 'prom_getchild' /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c:218: > error: implicit declaration of function 'prom_getsibling' > distcc[16086] ERROR: > compile /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/drivers/of/pdt.c on localhost > failed make[3]: *** [drivers/of/pdt.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** > [drivers/of] Error 2 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > And after applying patch 5, I get this instead: > > cc1: warnings being treated as errors > /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c: In > function > 'prom_common_nextprop': /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c:144: > error: passing argument 2 of 'prom_nextprop' discards qualifiers from > pointer target > type /home/grant/hacking/linux-2.6/arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_32.h:227: > note: expected 'char *' but argument is of type 'const char *' > make[2]: *** [arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** > Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > D'oh: arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_32.h:extern char *prom_nextprop(phandle node, char *prev_property, char *buffer); arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_64.h:extern char *prom_nextprop(phandle node, const char *prev_property, char *buf); > And applying the subsequent patches fails with the same error. > Sparc64 builds fine with the entire stack applied, but I haven't > bisected and I suspect that patch 4 will still fail there. > > So, I'll leave patches 1-3 in my tree, and drop 4-7 until you get it > sorted out. I'll go ahead and resend 4-8 once I fix 'em up; the nextprop fix require modifications to 5 and 8, and I haven't fixed the problem w/ 4 yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild b/arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild index deeb0fb..3c93f08 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ header-y += display7seg.h header-y += envctrl.h header-y += fbio.h header-y += jsflash.h -header-y += openprom.h header-y += openpromio.h header-y += perfctr.h header-y += psrcompat.h
It's unknown why openprom.h was being exported; there doesn't seem to be any reason for it currently, and it creates headaches with userspace being able to potentially use the structures in there. So, don't export it anymore. Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> --- arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)