Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:15 AM Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:12:38AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:30 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 3:30 AM Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > While checkpatch is indeed of arguable value, I think it would help a
> > > > > > lot not having to bother about the persistent _build_ failures on
> > > > > > 32-bit systems. You mentioned the fancy drm CI system above, but they
> > > > > > don't run tests and not even test builds on 32-bit targets, which has
> > > > > > repeatedly caused (and currently does cause) build failures in drm
> > > > > > code when trying to build, say, arm:allmodconfig in linux-next. Most
> > > > > > trivial build failures in linux-next (and, yes, sometimes mainline)
> > > > > > could be prevented with a simple generic CI.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, definitely. Thanks for bringing that up.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > >
> > > > Kisskb can send out email when builds get broken, and when they get
> > > > fixed again.  I receive such emails for the m68k builds.
> > >
> > > Like this (yes, one more in DRM; sometimes I wonder if DRM is meant only
> > > for 64-bit little-endian platforms with +200 GiB/s memory bandwidth):
> > >
> > > ---8<-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Subject: kisskb: FAILED linux-next/m68k-allmodconfig/m68k-gcc8 Mon Mar 04, 06:35
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 08:05:14 -0000
> > >
> > > FAILED linux-next/m68k-allmodconfig/m68k-gcc8 Mon Mar 04, 06:35
> > >
> > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/15135537/
> > >
> > > Commit:   Add linux-next specific files for 20240304
> > >           67908bf6954b7635d33760ff6dfc189fc26ccc89
> > > Compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 8.5.0 / GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.36.1
> > >
> > > Possible errors
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > > ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i-drm-hdmi.ko] undefined!
> > > make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:145: Module.symvers] Error 1
> > > make[2]: *** [Makefile:1871: modpost] Error 2
> > > make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> > > make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> > >
> > > No warnings found in log.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------->8---
> >
> > The driver is meant for a controller featured in an SoC with a Cortex-A8
> > ARM CPU and less than a GiB/s memory bandwidth.
> 
> Good, so the hardware cannot possibly need 64-bit pixel clock values ;-)

This is an early patch to convert that function into a framework hook
implementation. HDMI 2.1 has a max TMDS character rate of slightly less
than 6GHz, so larger than 2^32 - 1.

So yes, this driver doesn't need to. The framework does however.

> BTW, doesn't the build fail on arm32, too?

It seems like gcc vs clang plays a role too. I had the same defconfig
building for arm with gcc and reporting the error above with clang. I
didn't look further because there was something to fix indeed.

Maxime

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCZeWgSwAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xQndAP4hm7WKDSfvUr1OAuA+byAHKabfcMBOAmOIiPdzHz82XAEA7D2tFnMHWIHL
IFc/+TOVt18ZzPG2ws1AqKPXOolwxA4=
=Pk79
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----