Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] Canaan devicetree fixes

[Conor.Dooley]

On 30/06/2022 19:21, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 06:01:09PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 30/06/2022 18:53, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:28:26PM +0000, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:43:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>> This series should rid us of dtbs_check errors for the RISC-V Canaan k210
>>>>> based boards. To make keeping it that way a little easier, I changed the
>>>>> Canaan devicetree Makefile so that it would build all of the devicetrees
>>>>> in the directory if SOC_CANAAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> I *DO NOT* have any Canaan hardware so I have not tested any of this in
>>>>> action. Since I sent v1, I tried to buy some since it's cheap - but could
>>>>> out of the limited stockists none seemed to want to deliver to Ireland :(
>>>>> I based the series on next-20220617.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I first tried to apply your series on top of next-20220630,
>>>> but was greeted by a bunch of different warnings on boot,
>>>> including endless RCU stall warnings.
>>>> However, even when booting next-20220630 without your patches,
>>>> I got the same warnings and RCU stall.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible to share the boot logs please ?
>>> Conor is having issues with my arch_topology/cacheinfo updates in -next.
>>> I would like to know if your issue is related to that or not ?
>>>
>>>> So I tested your series on top of v5.19-rc4 +
>>>> commit 0397d50f4cad ("spi: dt-bindings: Move 'rx-sample-delay-ns' to
>>>> spi-peripheral-props.yaml") cherry-picked,
>>>> (in order to avoid conflicts when applying your series,)
>>>> and the board was working as intended, no warnings or RCU stalls.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If possible can you give this branch[1] a try where my changes are and doesn't
>>> have any other changes from -next. Sorry to bother you.
>>>
>>> Conor seem to have issue with this commit[2], so if you get issues try to
>>> check if [3] works.
>>
>> FWIW, my problems with that are not on canaan hw.
> 
> I understand that, just helps to eliminate and see what are the possible
> issues.

No no, I meant that for Niklas' benefit not yours.
I get why you wanna know :)