On 4/11/2023 9:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:08:39AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
On 4/11/2023 9:01 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:40:28PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:55:20AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:38:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
from include/linux/kernel.h:17,
from drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:4:
drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c: In function 'mhi_qaic_ctrl_init':
include/linux/export.h:27:22: error: passing argument 1 of 'class_create' from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
27 | #define THIS_MODULE (&__this_module)
| ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| struct module *
drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:544:38: note: in expansion of macro 'THIS_MODULE'
544 | mqc_dev_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, MHI_QAIC_CTRL_DRIVER_NAME);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from include/linux/device.h:31,
from include/linux/mhi.h:9,
from drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:5:
include/linux/device/class.h:229:54: note: expected 'const char *' but argument is of type 'struct module *'
229 | struct class * __must_check class_create(const char *name);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~
drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:544:25: error: too many arguments to function 'class_create'
544 | mqc_dev_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, MHI_QAIC_CTRL_DRIVER_NAME);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/device/class.h:229:29: note: declared here
229 | struct class * __must_check class_create(const char *name);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
Caused by commit
1aaba11da9aa ("driver core: class: remove module * from class_create()")
interacting with commit
566fc96198b4 ("accel/qaic: Add mhi_qaic_cntl")
from the drm tree.
I have applied the following merge fix patch for today.
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:16:57 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "driver core: class: remove module * from class_create()"
interacting with "accel/qaic: Add mhi_qaic_cntl"
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the fixup. Since Dave is out I've made a note about this in my
handover mail so it won't get lost in the drm-next merge window pull. I
don't think we need any other coordination than mention it in each pull to
Linus, topic tree seems overkill for this. Plus there's no way I can
untangle the drm tree anyway :-).
Want me to submit a patch for the drm tree that moves this to use
class_register() instead, which will make the merge/build issue go away
for you? That's my long-term goal here anyway, so converting this new
code to this api today would be something I have to do eventually :)
We kinda closed drm-next for feature work mostly already (just pulling
stuff in from subtrees), so won't really help for this merge window.
For everything else I think this is up to Oded, I had no idea qaic needed
it's entire own dev class and I don't want to dig into this for the risk I
might freak out :-)
Adding Oded.
Cheers, Daniel
Sorry for the mess.
I made a note to update to class_register() once my drm-misc access is
sorted out. Looks like we'll address the conflict in the merge window, and
catch the update to the new API in the following release.
Wait, I think the large question is, "why does this need a separate
class"? Why are you not using the accel char device and class? That is
what everything under accel/ should be using, otherwise why put it in
there?
And what exactly are you using that class for? Just device nodes? If
so, how many?
thanks,
greg k-h
Remember MHI_UCI that then evolved into the WWAN subsystem? I pointed
out at the time that AIC100/QAIC would need the same functionality.
You/Jakub told myself/Mani/Loic that a combined implementation is not
acceptable, and every area needs to implement their own version of MHI_UCI.
We took the WWAN subsystem and simplified it to meet our needs.
The functionality is QAIC specific, so wedging it into the Accel node
seems to be a poor fit as it would subject Habana and iVPU to the same.
We need (eventually) 128 device nodes. We have systems with 32 QAIC
devices, and each QAIC device uses 4 device nodes (32 * 4 = 128). WWAN
subsystem would be similar. Looks like each 5G modem is 6 nodes per
device, so if you had 22 5G modems on a system, you'd have 132 device
nodes. I'm not aware of any such system, but it could exist.
-Jeff
