Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 03:11:48PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/25/2016 09:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> >> produced this warning:
> >>
> >> In file included from include/linux/clocksource.h:18:0,
> >>                  from include/linux/clockchips.h:13,
> >>                  from drivers/clocksource/jcore-pit.c:14:
> >> include/linux/of.h:1004:20: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> >>         .data = (fn == (fn_type)NULL) ? fn : fn  }
> >>                     ^
> >> include/linux/of.h:1020:3: note: in expansion of macro '_OF_DECLARE'
> >>    _OF_DECLARE(table, name, compat, fn, of_init_fn_1_ret)
> >>    ^
> >> include/linux/clocksource.h:247:2: note: in expansion of macro 'OF_DECLARE_1_RET'
> >>   OF_DECLARE_1_RET(clksrc, name, compat, fn)
> >>   ^
> >> drivers/clocksource/jcore-pit.c:277:1: note: in expansion of macro 'CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE'
> >>  CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(jcore_pit, "jcore,pit", jcore_pit_init);
> >>  ^
> >>
> >> Introduced by commits
> >>
> >>   b7c4db861683 ("clocksource/drivers/clksrc-probe: Introduce init functions with return code")
> >>   177cf6e52b0a ("clocksources: Switch back to the clksrc table")
> >>
> >> interacting with commit
> >>
> >>   e0aa0655c60b ("clocksource: add J-Core timer/clocksource driver")
> >>
> >> from the sh tree.
> > 
> > And why is that driver coming through the superh tree and not through the
> > clocksource maintainers? It's not only based on an old interface it's probably
> > unreviewed as well ...
> 
> Rich,
> 
> why are these changes in linux-next ?
> 
> Except I am missing something, I don't see a new version sent for review
> on the mailing list. The interrupt controller driver is almost empty as
> stated by Marc Zyngier and there is no explanation / discussion about it.
> 
> I don't know the goal of adding those patches in linux-next via your
> tree, may be you misunderstood how linux-next works and you should
> remove them. But if the purpose was to merge the patches, I remind you
> that being an arch maintainer does not give you the right to apply any
> patches, everywhere, at all cost, without review, because you want them
> in, you must follow the process, otherwise you take the risk to upset a
> lot of people and to be kicked out.

If this is upsetting people I can remove them. Last time I got
feedback from at least one (driver) subsystem maintainer that (if I
understood it correctly) indicated they would like to have seen the
patch in linux-next without problems before upstreaming it through
their tree. That was my motivation for including it here. I'm not
trying to bypass other maintainers to push patches upstream and I can
remove all non-arch/sh stuff from for-next if that would be better.

Rich