On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:39:20AM +0000, Laurentiu Tudor wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:17:59PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > > tree: > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.ker > > nel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fgregkh%2Fstaging.git&data > > =01%7C01%7Claurentiu.tudor%40nxp.com%7C751676566b8f465b5fa108d4bb1 > > 69974%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=hDMOrVmq8h6I > > MBDuCHgARD44vX58GOPYWIQSqMsdAjo%3D&reserved=0 staging-testing > > > head: 18cd9021ea035db85519391dbc429a5b1d0dd25b > > > commit: b065307fe0ad7859f01ce8560e6bdc590324561a [357/367] staging: > > > fsl-mc: remove dpmng API files > > > config: arm64-allyesconfig (attached as .config) > > > compiler: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 6.1.1-9) 6.1.1 20160705 > > > reproduce: > > > wget > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.git > > hubusercontent.com%2F01org%2Flkp- > > tests%2Fmaster%2Fsbin%2Fmake.cross&data=01%7C01%7Claurentiu.tudor%40 > > nxp.com%7C751676566b8f465b5fa108d4bb169974%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92c > > d99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=JvBQcG8MAs7PwDoXxYXe89sqs%2B2ADAiQd7sYCq > > 0YbPE%3D&reserved=0 -O ~/bin/make.cross > > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > > git checkout b065307fe0ad7859f01ce8560e6bdc590324561a > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > make.cross ARCH=arm64 > > > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > > > >> make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpmng.o', > > needed by 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/mc-bus-driver.o'. > > > make[5]: Target '__build' not remade because of errors. > > > > Crap, this isn't good. But it looks like further patches fixes this issue, right? > > Wow, doesn't look like so. I don't know how I managed to screw this up so badly. :-( > > > Laurentiu, any ideas here? You do always test every individual patch, right? :) > > Usually yes, but looks like this time I managed to mess it up. Sorry for the trouble. > > > Note, if you all ever got multi-arch building working for this code, I would have > > caught this a lot earlier, that should be something you fix up to get this out of > > staging, no reason to only depend on one arch. > > Got it. I don't think there's any arch depended stuff in the code so there shouldn't be issues. > I'll fix up this series and submit a v2 of the whole patch set and after that look into the multi-arch stuff. > Is this ok? No, it's already in my tree, so either I revert the patch series, or I take a fixup patch for it. Which do you want me to do? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
