From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 12:54:38
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/clkdev.c: In function ‘vclkdev_alloc’:
drivers/clk/clkdev.c:173:3: warning: function ‘vclkdev_alloc’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-11 19:24:52
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:27)
quoted hunk
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/clkdev.c: In function ‘vclkdev_alloc’:
drivers/clk/clkdev.c:173:3: warning: function ‘vclkdev_alloc’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-12 09:37:10
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:27)
quoted
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/clkdev.c: In function ‘vclkdev_alloc’:
drivers/clk/clkdev.c:173:3: warning: function ‘vclkdev_alloc’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
This is probably a question for Arnd.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-03-10 09:00:37
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:27)
quoted
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/clkdev.c: In function ‘vclkdev_alloc’:
drivers/clk/clkdev.c:173:3: warning: function ‘vclkdev_alloc’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
UPDATE: Arnd and I are working on a solution for this.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:39PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx6sl.c:156:6: warning: no previous prototype for ‘imx6sl_set_wait_clk’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Cc: NXP Linux Team <redacted>
Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 13:07:45
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c:46: warning: Function parameter or member 'max_div' not described in 'zynqmp_clk_divider'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: Rajan Vaja <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
From: Michal Simek <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 12:53:16
On 1/26/21 1:45 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted hunk
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c:46: warning: Function parameter or member 'max_div' not described in 'zynqmp_clk_divider'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: Rajan Vaja <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
In our soc tree we have
* @max_div: Maximum divisor value allowed
But your description should be also fine. Rajan please reply if I am
wrong. Otherwise:
Acked-by: Michal Simek <redacted>
Thanks,
Michal
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-11 20:06:57
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:40)
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynqmp/divider.c:46: warning: Function parameter or member 'max_div' not described in 'zynqmp_clk_divider'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: Rajan Vaja <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 13:07:59
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Maxime Ripard <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 15:58:46
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted hunk
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 18:11:14
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in
that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once
No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it
already is
Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over
100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a
couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different,
some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things
very frustrating at times).
Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible
time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is
compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate
warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once
all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the
next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this
gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks.
Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a
task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would
slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have
different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review
patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that
one reviewer who takes weeks to review. Having each file addressed
in a separate patch also helps revertability and bisectability. Not
such a big problem with the documentation patches, but still.
Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets
when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there
hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in
the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing
would get done!
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Maxime Ripard <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 09:30:00
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:54:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in
that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once
No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it
already is
Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over
100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a
couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different,
some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things
very frustrating at times).
Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible
time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is
compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate
warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once
all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the
next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this
gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks.
I mean, you have literally used the same commit log and the same changes
over six different files in the same directory. Sure changes across
different parts of the kernel can be painful, but it's really not what
we're discussing here.
Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a
task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would
slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have
different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review
patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that
one reviewer who takes weeks to review.
Are you arguing that sending the same patch 6 times is easier and faster
to review for the maintainer than the same changes in a single patch?
Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps
revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the
documentation patches, but still.
There's nothing to revert or bisect, those changes aren't functional
changes.
Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets
when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there
hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in
the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing
would get done!
Yeah, and even though properly documenting the functions would have been
the right way to fix those warnings, I didn't ask you to do that since I
was expecting it to be daunting. Surely we can meet half-way
Maxime
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 10:10:18
On Wed, 03 Feb 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:54:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in
that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once
No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it
already is
Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over
100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a
couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different,
some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things
very frustrating at times).
Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible
time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is
compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate
warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once
all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the
next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this
gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks.
I mean, you have literally used the same commit log and the same changes
over six different files in the same directory.
Yes, that happens. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the same ol'
issues repeating themselves over and over. Mostly due to copy/paste
of mundane code segments such as function documentation.
Sure changes across
different parts of the kernel can be painful, but it's really not what
we're discussing here.
It would have even been painful to post-process patches within the
same subsystem. For instance, I've just finished cleaning up GPU
which was a mammoth task where most of the issues were perpetually
duplicated.
I will admit though, that here in Clock, it would be somewhat easier.
quoted
Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a
task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would
slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have
different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review
patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that
one reviewer who takes weeks to review.
Are you arguing that sending the same patch 6 times is easier and faster
to review for the maintainer than the same changes in a single patch?
The issue I see with the Clock, is that some files are maintained by
individual driver Maintainers and others by subsystem Maintainers. So
the post-process here is that much more painful (as it can't be
easily scripted using get_maintainer.pl) and the aforementioned
lag-time issues come into play while we wait for sleepy reviewers.
quoted
Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps
revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the
documentation patches, but still.
There's nothing to revert or bisect, those changes aren't functional
changes.
Right, I did mention that.
quoted
Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets
when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there
hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in
the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing
would get done!
Yeah, and even though properly documenting the functions would have been
the right way to fix those warnings, I didn't ask you to do that since I
was expecting it to be daunting.
There are a couple of schools of thought on function documentation.
The conflicting one to yours is that Kernel-doc headers should only be
used if they are part of an API and have an accompanying kernel-doc::
tag in Documentation. The functions touched here do not.
NB: Fortunately the functions we're discussing are all static or else
`scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` would complain about them also.
Personally, I am in the middle. If authors have had a good go at
documenting functions and their parameters, I'll make the effort to
fix any doc-rot or oversights. However if, like here, no such effort
has been made, they get demoted. Nothing stopping authors fixing them
up properly and re-promoting them again though. Essentially I'm
trying to avoid a situation where authors throw something together
half-heatedly, safe in the knowledge that someone will come fix and
beautify things for them.
Surely we can meet half-way
I'm always happy to collaborate. What does half-way look like?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-11 20:06:13
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:38)
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/spear/spear1310_clock.c:385:13: warning: no previous prototype for ‘spear1310_clk_init’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
drivers/clk/spear/spear1340_clock.c:442:13: warning: no previous prototype for ‘spear1340_clk_init’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>
Cc: Shiraz Hashim <redacted>
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Rajeev Kumar <redacted>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 13:13:06
Headers must describe their parameters.
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c:27: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun9i_a80_get_pll4_factors'
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c:100: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun9i_a80_get_gt_factors'
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c:155: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun9i_a80_get_ahb_factors'
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c:235: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun9i_a80_get_apb1_factors'
Cc: "Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 13:15:57
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'name' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'parent' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_ctrl' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_status' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock_index' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: "Sören Brinkmann" <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
From: Michal Simek <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 13:02:47
On 1/26/21 1:45 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted hunk
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'name' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'parent' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_ctrl' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_status' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock_index' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: "Sören Brinkmann" <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
When you are on this we should also fix that Returns which are also
reported by kernel-doc
When your patch is applied:
[linux](master)$ ./scripts/kernel-doc -v -man drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c >
/dev/null
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:15: warning: missing initial short description on
line:
* struct zynq_pll
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:15: info: Scanning doc for struct
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:45: info: Scanning doc for zynq_pll_round_rate
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:53: warning: No description found for return
value of 'zynq_pll_round_rate'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:66: info: Scanning doc for zynq_pll_recalc_rate
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:73: warning: No description found for return
value of 'zynq_pll_recalc_rate'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:88: info: Scanning doc for zynq_pll_is_enabled
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:96: warning: No description found for return
value of 'zynq_pll_is_enabled'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:111: info: Scanning doc for zynq_pll_enable
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:116: warning: No description found for return
value of 'zynq_pll_enable'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:141: info: Scanning doc for zynq_pll_disable
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:175: info: Scanning doc for clk_register_zynq_pll
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: No description found for return
value of 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
6 warnings
Can you please also fix it? It can be done in separate patch if this is
not reported by W=1.
Acked-by: Michal Simek <redacted>
Thanks,
Michal
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-11 19:56:44
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:20)
Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'name' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'parent' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_ctrl' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'pll_status' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock_index' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
drivers/clk/zynq/pll.c:187: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock' not described in 'clk_register_zynq_pll'
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <redacted>
Cc: "Sören Brinkmann" <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-03 08:33:44
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Out of interest, what normally happens to the patches which aren't
picked up by individual driver Maintainers?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-05 19:00:05
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-03 00:31:55)
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Out of interest, what normally happens to the patches which aren't
picked up by individual driver Maintainers?
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-05 19:24:07
On Fri, 05 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-03 00:31:55)
quoted
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Out of interest, what normally happens to the patches which aren't
picked up by individual driver Maintainers?
I have to go in and figure it out! :)
Thanks mate, much obliged.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-11 20:48:22
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-11 21:13:11
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-12 03:08:32
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-12 09:22:08
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed,
and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests
over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time,
he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'.
W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and
subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new
ones.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-12 21:03:32
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed,
and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests
over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time,
he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'.
W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and
subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new
ones.
Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that
just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and
then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on
them submitting new warnings?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-12 21:26:44
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed,
and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests
over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time,
he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'.
W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and
subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new
ones.
Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that
just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and
then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on
them submitting new warnings?
The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of
fixes that will occur as a result. The issues I just fixed were built
up over years. They won't get to that level again.
In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1
enabled by default. I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now.
Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a
whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar)
on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line).
Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO.
If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the
first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-12 21:27:38
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed,
and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests
over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time,
he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'.
W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and
subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new
ones.
Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that
just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and
then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on
them submitting new warnings?
The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of
fixes that will occur as a result. The issues I just fixed were built
up over years. They won't get to that level again.
In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1
enabled by default. I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now.
Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a
whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar)
on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line).
Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO.
If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the
first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build.
Just to add real quick - my advice is to enable them for yourself and
send back any issues along with your normal review. A W=1 issue is no
different to a semantic or coding style one.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-12 22:06:32
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 13:26:30)
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of
fixes that will occur as a result. The issues I just fixed were built
up over years. They won't get to that level again.
In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1
enabled by default. I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now.
That's good.
quoted
Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a
whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar)
on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line).
Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO.
If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the
first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build.
Just to add real quick - my advice is to enable them for yourself and
send back any issues along with your normal review. A W=1 issue is no
different to a semantic or coding style one.
I'd like to enable it for only files under drivers/clk/ but it doesn't
seem to work. I'm not asking to enable it at the toplevel Makefile. I'm
asking to enable it for drivers/clk/ so nobody has to think about it now
that you've done the hard work of getting the numbers in this directory
down to zero or close to zero.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2021-02-12 22:48:38
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 13:26:30)
quoted
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted
The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of
fixes that will occur as a result. The issues I just fixed were built
up over years. They won't get to that level again.
In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1
enabled by default. I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now.
That's good.
quoted
quoted
Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a
whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar)
on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line).
Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO.
If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the
first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build.
Just to add real quick - my advice is to enable them for yourself and
send back any issues along with your normal review. A W=1 issue is no
different to a semantic or coding style one.
I'd like to enable it for only files under drivers/clk/ but it doesn't
seem to work. I'm not asking to enable it at the toplevel Makefile. I'm
asking to enable it for drivers/clk/ so nobody has to think about it now
that you've done the hard work of getting the numbers in this directory
down to zero or close to zero.
I'm not sure which one of us is confused. Probably me, but ...
Even if you could enable it per-subsystem, how would that help you?
How can you ensure that contributors see any new W=1 warnings, but
Linus doesn't? When Linus conducts his build-tests during the merge
window, he is also going to build W=1 for drivers/clk.
All that's going to achieve is put you in the firing line.
From my PoV W=1 builds should be enabled during the development phase
(i.e. contributor, auto-builder, maintainer). By the time patches get
make it into Mainline the review/testing stage is over and only the
default W=0 warnings are meaningful.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> Date: 2021-02-13 00:07:42
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 14:37:39)
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
I'd like to enable it for only files under drivers/clk/ but it doesn't
seem to work. I'm not asking to enable it at the toplevel Makefile. I'm
asking to enable it for drivers/clk/ so nobody has to think about it now
that you've done the hard work of getting the numbers in this directory
down to zero or close to zero.
I'm not sure which one of us is confused. Probably me, but ...
Even if you could enable it per-subsystem, how would that help you?
How can you ensure that contributors see any new W=1 warnings, but
Linus doesn't? When Linus conducts his build-tests during the merge
window, he is also going to build W=1 for drivers/clk.
The assumption is contributors would have compiled the code they're
sending, but that's obviously not always the case, so this assumption
relies on developers running make. If they do run make then the hope is
they would see the warnings now, without having to rely on them to know
about passing W=1 to make, and fix them before sending code. If
developers are ignoring build errors or warnings then we can't do
anything anyway.
All that's going to achieve is put you in the firing line.
Ok. Is this prior experience?
From my PoV W=1 builds should be enabled during the development phase
(i.e. contributor, auto-builder, maintainer). By the time patches get
make it into Mainline the review/testing stage is over and only the
default W=0 warnings are meaningful.
Alright maybe I don't understand and W=1 builds are noisy for the
drivers/clk subdirectory even after applying these patches. Or it has
some false positives that won't be fixed? Or a new compiler can cause
new warnings to happen? I could see these things being a problem.
I'm trying to see if we can make lives better for everyone by exposing
the warnings by default in the drivers/clk/ directory now that there are
supposedly none left. Shouldn't we tighten the screws now that we've
cleaned them?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Date: 2021-02-13 16:05:58
I'm trying to see if we can make lives better for everyone by exposing
the warnings by default in the drivers/clk/ directory now that there are
supposedly none left. Shouldn't we tighten the screws now that we've
cleaned them?
Do you use patchwork? netdev has a bot attached which applies the
patch and does a W=1 build, and will report any new warnings. But it
does not email the developer, as far as i know. It is up to you as the
maintainer to reject the patch and say why.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Date: 2021-02-13 16:00:21
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 07:07:30PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
quoted
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
quoted
Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
quoted
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.
This is the last set. Clock is clean after this.
Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
*locally*.
This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
level. That's kinda the point of W=1.
Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
About a cycle ago, Arnd and i played around with this idea. The
Ethernet PHY subsystem is W=1 clean, and most of he network stack
is. But keeping it clean is not so easy, when developers do sometimes
add new warnings, since they have no idea the code is W=1 clean.
You are also not the only one asking for such a feature. RDMA also
asked recently.
Arnd, do you plan to push the patches?
Andrew
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel