On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:14:26AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:54:26PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Most of this ruffle seems to be about the fact that booting a kernel
> > with a device tree that doesn't conform to the brand spanking new,
> > and never previously enforced, binding for the cpu nodes will produce
> > a WARN_ON(). Lots of our in-tree device trees fall into this category.
> >
> > And while I think it was a bad idea for Lorenzo to ask for this to be
> > merged as a fix this late (and most in particular for stable), as far
> > as I can tell nothing (new) is broken by it -- just the alarming warning
> > is being printed.
> >
> > I think it probably makes sense to downgrade the WARN to just a printk, and
> > people will be a lot less worried. How about the below?
> >
> > If you're OK with it, Russell, can we get your ack so Linus can apply
> > directly given the imminence of final 3.10? Or, if you prefer, you can of
> > course apply and send it on instead.
>
> You can have my usual rmk+kernel ack for it with one change...
>
> > + if (!bootcpu_valid) {
> > + pr_warn("DT missing boot CPU MPIDR[23:0], fall back to "
> > + "default cpu_logical_map\n");
>
> Don't wrap messages kernel messages inspite of what checkpatch says.
> Always keep messages like that on a single line so they're greppable.
> Checkpatch is far from perfect and does get stuff wrong, and this is
> one of its common mistakes.
I didn't even run it through checkpatch, and I prefer greppable strings too --
I just went with what the rest of the file already used in this case to keep
the change minimal given timing.
I'll send a fresh copy with your ack and the above changed. Thanks.
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
