On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 7:57 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 02:45:27PM +0000, Łukasz Bartosik wrote: > > From: Pavan Holla <pholla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Implementation of a UCSI transport driver for ChromeOS. > > This driver will be loaded if the ChromeOS EC implements a PPM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Holla <pholla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Co-developed-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Co-developed-by: Łukasz Bartosik <ukaszb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Łukasz Bartosik <ukaszb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 7 + > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/Kconfig | 13 + > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c | 337 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Given all of the 0-day reports I now have in my inbox for this driver, > I'm going to drop this series from my tree. Chromium developers, please > do better testing, these are simple build issues that you all should > have caught way before version 11 of the driver :( > Hi Greg, This is indeed lame on my side. But on the other hand it is a good lesson learned that sticking to one config/compiler as a verification method of patches is not enough. I was surprised when I verified why I missed this failure because it turned out in my environment clang didn't even posted a warning for the issue CALL /mnt/host/source/src/third_party/kernel/upstream/scripts/checksyscalls.sh CC [M] drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.o MODPOST Module.symvers Anyway I have prepared patchset v12 with the fix and verified that all the failures reported by the 0-Day CI passed: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/202412240743.tzTftk4H-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/202412240903.xAqTOQpa-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/202412241137.ld79A9Iq-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks, Lukasz > thanks, > > greg k-h