Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1424931 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> - 2016-06-17 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-06-18 04:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 05:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-06-18 05:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 05:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-06-18 05:50 +0200

#1424931 — Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] gpio: Allow PC/104 devices on X86_64

On 31.05.2016 17:25, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:23:06AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, William Breathitt Gray
>>> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style
>>>> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the
>>>> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus
>>>> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to.
> […]
>> Greg K-H,
>>
>> Would you be able to pick up this entire patchset via driver-core; I
>> figure that tree is the most appropriate to receive any core ISA bus
>> driver changes (unless you see a more fitting path to take).
> […]
> Yes, I can take this through the driver core tree as that's where the
> original series came from...

Was this series merged or did it fell through the cracks? I currently
assume the latter, as I can't see it in neither mainline nor linux-next
(but maybe I'm missing something). Just wondering, because I have this
issue on my regression list for 4.7.

For the whole context see:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.gpio/17016/

Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo)
 Thorsten

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1425613

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:47:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 31.05.2016 17:25, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:23:06AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, William Breathitt Gray
> >>> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style
> >>>> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the
> >>>> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus
> >>>> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to.
> > […]
> >> Greg K-H,
> >>
> >> Would you be able to pick up this entire patchset via driver-core; I
> >> figure that tree is the most appropriate to receive any core ISA bus
> >> driver changes (unless you see a more fitting path to take).
> > […]
> > Yes, I can take this through the driver core tree as that's where the
> > original series came from...
> 
> Was this series merged or did it fell through the cracks? I currently
> assume the latter, as I can't see it in neither mainline nor linux-next
> (but maybe I'm missing something). Just wondering, because I have this
> issue on my regression list for 4.7.
> 
> For the whole context see:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.gpio/17016/
> 
> Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo)

I don't think this is a regression, I was going to queue these up for
4.8-rc1.  As it is now, 4.7-rc is working just fine in this regards,
right?

Or am I missing something?

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1425615

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:36:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:47:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 31.05.2016 17:25, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:23:06AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, William Breathitt Gray
>> >>> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style
>> >>>> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the
>> >>>> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus
>> >>>> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to.
>> > […]
>> >> Greg K-H,
>> >>
>> >> Would you be able to pick up this entire patchset via driver-core; I
>> >> figure that tree is the most appropriate to receive any core ISA bus
>> >> driver changes (unless you see a more fitting path to take).
>> > […]
>> > Yes, I can take this through the driver core tree as that's where the
>> > original series came from...
>> 
>> Was this series merged or did it fell through the cracks? I currently
>> assume the latter, as I can't see it in neither mainline nor linux-next
>> (but maybe I'm missing something). Just wondering, because I have this
>> issue on my regression list for 4.7.
>> 
>> For the whole context see:
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.gpio/17016/
>> 
>> Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo)
>
>I don't think this is a regression, I was going to queue these up for
>4.8-rc1.  As it is now, 4.7-rc is working just fine in this regards,
>right?
>
>Or am I missing something?

The PC/104 drivers were changed to utilize the ISA bus driver as part of
the original patchset which attempted to decouple the X86_32 dependency
from the ISA Kconfig option; these drivers were updated with the
intention of building on X86_64 in addition to X86_32.

However, the respective patches were merged without the decoupling
changes (since decoupling was the wrong approach), resulting in an
unintentional regression: the PC/104 drivers are now restricted to
X86_32 due to the ISA Kconfig option dependency, while they were capable
of building for X86_64 in previous kernel versions.

This patchset should fix this regression by introducing the ISA_BUS_API
Kconfig option, and the respective Kconfig dependency changes for the
drivers, in order to allow them to build for both X86_64 and X86_32 as
originally capable.

William Breathitt Gray

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1425617

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:36:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:47:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 31.05.2016 17:25, Greg KH wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:23:06AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, William Breathitt Gray
> >> >>> <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style
> >> >>>> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the
> >> >>>> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus
> >> >>>> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to.
> >> > […]
> >> >> Greg K-H,
> >> >>
> >> >> Would you be able to pick up this entire patchset via driver-core; I
> >> >> figure that tree is the most appropriate to receive any core ISA bus
> >> >> driver changes (unless you see a more fitting path to take).
> >> > […]
> >> > Yes, I can take this through the driver core tree as that's where the
> >> > original series came from...
> >> 
> >> Was this series merged or did it fell through the cracks? I currently
> >> assume the latter, as I can't see it in neither mainline nor linux-next
> >> (but maybe I'm missing something). Just wondering, because I have this
> >> issue on my regression list for 4.7.
> >> 
> >> For the whole context see:
> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.gpio/17016/
> >> 
> >> Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo)
> >
> >I don't think this is a regression, I was going to queue these up for
> >4.8-rc1.  As it is now, 4.7-rc is working just fine in this regards,
> >right?
> >
> >Or am I missing something?
> 
> The PC/104 drivers were changed to utilize the ISA bus driver as part of
> the original patchset which attempted to decouple the X86_32 dependency
> from the ISA Kconfig option; these drivers were updated with the
> intention of building on X86_64 in addition to X86_32.
> 
> However, the respective patches were merged without the decoupling
> changes (since decoupling was the wrong approach), resulting in an
> unintentional regression: the PC/104 drivers are now restricted to
> X86_32 due to the ISA Kconfig option dependency, while they were capable
> of building for X86_64 in previous kernel versions.
> 
> This patchset should fix this regression by introducing the ISA_BUS_API
> Kconfig option, and the respective Kconfig dependency changes for the
> drivers, in order to allow them to build for both X86_64 and X86_32 as
> originally capable.

Ah, ok, that makes more sense, thanks.  I'll go queue these up now.

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1425623

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:18:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>> The PC/104 drivers were changed to utilize the ISA bus driver as part of
>> the original patchset which attempted to decouple the X86_32 dependency
>> from the ISA Kconfig option; these drivers were updated with the
>> intention of building on X86_64 in addition to X86_32.
>> 
>> However, the respective patches were merged without the decoupling
>> changes (since decoupling was the wrong approach), resulting in an
>> unintentional regression: the PC/104 drivers are now restricted to
>> X86_32 due to the ISA Kconfig option dependency, while they were capable
>> of building for X86_64 in previous kernel versions.
>> 
>> This patchset should fix this regression by introducing the ISA_BUS_API
>> Kconfig option, and the respective Kconfig dependency changes for the
>> drivers, in order to allow them to build for both X86_64 and X86_32 as
>> originally capable.
>
>Ah, ok, that makes more sense, thanks.  I'll go queue these up now.
>
>greg k-h

Greg K-H,

Please also consider picking up the following two patches which fix bugs
discovered during the ISA bus driver utilization conversion:

  1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9046831/
  2. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9074641/

The second patch in particular fixes a kernel BUG which prevents some
drivers that call isa_register_driver from being built-in. This was
first reported by Sasha Levin (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/11/719), and
the patch was later tested by Ye Xiaolong
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/31/164).

Thanks,

William Breathitt Gray

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1425628

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:04PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:18:10PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >> The PC/104 drivers were changed to utilize the ISA bus driver as part of
> >> the original patchset which attempted to decouple the X86_32 dependency
> >> from the ISA Kconfig option; these drivers were updated with the
> >> intention of building on X86_64 in addition to X86_32.
> >> 
> >> However, the respective patches were merged without the decoupling
> >> changes (since decoupling was the wrong approach), resulting in an
> >> unintentional regression: the PC/104 drivers are now restricted to
> >> X86_32 due to the ISA Kconfig option dependency, while they were capable
> >> of building for X86_64 in previous kernel versions.
> >> 
> >> This patchset should fix this regression by introducing the ISA_BUS_API
> >> Kconfig option, and the respective Kconfig dependency changes for the
> >> drivers, in order to allow them to build for both X86_64 and X86_32 as
> >> originally capable.
> >
> >Ah, ok, that makes more sense, thanks.  I'll go queue these up now.
> >
> >greg k-h
> 
> Greg K-H,
> 
> Please also consider picking up the following two patches which fix bugs
> discovered during the ISA bus driver utilization conversion:
> 
>   1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9046831/
>   2. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9074641/
> 
> The second patch in particular fixes a kernel BUG which prevents some
> drivers that call isa_register_driver from being built-in. This was
> first reported by Sasha Levin (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/11/719), and
> the patch was later tested by Ye Xiaolong
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/31/164).

Now queued up, thanks for the prompt, they were still setting in my
queue.

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web