Hi all, On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:17:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:05:42 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> > wrote: > > > > though so it seems something with my configuration and boot. I > > bisected next-20170203 between its latest commit and v4.10-rc6 and > > ended up with this bad commit: > > > > 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62 > > > > $ git show 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62 > > commit 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62 > > Merge: 7c3b1edeee66 3f87493930a0 > > Author: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> > > Date: Fri Feb 3 12:30:38 2017 +1100 > > > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'spi/for-next' > > > > I have checked Next/SHA1s and it shows: > > > > mcgrof@piggy ~/linux-next (git::original)$ grep spi Next/SHA1s > > spi-nor dc12bcccadafb5441170e6b7c8a438c91d4f385b > > spi 3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd > > hwspinlock bd5717a4632cdecafe82d03de7dcb3b1876e2828 > > > > The commit 3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd then seems to be > > what I need to test. I have cloned Mark's spi tree and just tried to > > boot the for-next branch (on v4.10-rc1) on > > 3f87493930a0f934549b04e100ecc2110e4f1efd, and it boots successfully. > > This would lead me to believe this issue might be related to the merge > > conflict resolution done by Stephen, but wanted to check and ask. > > Perhaps there might be some specific tests I can run. > > OK, it is possible that the merge is actually incorrect. I did *not* > do any manual resolution of that merge and git only reported an > automatic resolution in file drivers/spi/spi-bcm-qspi.c (which looks ok > from a quick glance). > > It is always possible that there is some semantic conflict that git > won't see and didn;t also involve a syntactic conflict or a build > failure. e.g. the internal semantics of a function changes on one side > of the merge but a new usage expecting the old semantics is introduced > on the other side.
Just to mention, there was no change to the spi tree between next-20170202 and next-20170203. I assume that next-20170202 is fine? If so, you could try bisecting with next-20170202 as good and 104a519fe1732b4e503ebc7b4ac71b6f0b8a0b62 as bad. I have no idea if that sort of bisec will even work, though. Or if commit 8cfb3801a57a (the merge of the spi tree in next-20170202) is fine, then you could try using that as your starting good (that will remove a lot of next-20170202). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
