Re: [linux-next:master 7766/10451] drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8650.c:3573:29: error: incompatible pointer types passing 'struct device *' to parameter of type 'struct platform_device *'

[Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@quicinc.com>]

On 7/18/2024 3:36 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/07/2024 11:48, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/18/2024 12:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2024 17:20, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>> head:   0b58e108042b0ed28a71cd7edf5175999955b233
>>>> commit: 09ea421652a832083ea380a72addf383965f3682 [7766/10451] clk: qcom: camcc-sm8650: Add SM8650 camera clock controller driver
>>>> config: x86_64-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240707/202407072331.baglL4Sd-lkp@intel.com/config)
>>>> compiler: clang version 18.1.5 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 617a15a9eac96088ae5e9134248d8236e34b91b1)
>>>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240707/202407072331.baglL4Sd-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>>>
>>> This and this:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202407072212.WptVaUDt-lkp@intel.com/
>>>
>>> are reports on linux-next. They were addressed to you/
>>>
>>> Jagadeesh, how did you respond to public reports that your commit has
>>> build failures in linux-next?
>>>
>>> It reached now Linus' tree causing huge rant, unfortunately not in the
>>> direction we would like that rant to go.
>>>
>>> If you receive a report that your code does not even compile, it is YOUR
>>> DAMN MOST IMPORTANT TASK to address it IMMEDIATELY.
>>>
>>> I don't think such code should be ever accepted if contributors do not
>>> take responsibility for their commits.
>>>
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>> I initially submitted my change [1] by passing pdev to
>> qcom_cc_really_probe(). Seems like due to [2] which changed the
>> qcom_cc_really_probe() parameters from pdev to dev, my change was
>> updated from pdev to &pdev->dev while applying.
>>
>> When this issue was reported by kernel bot, I checked out the linux-next
>> tree but I didn't see this failure since the common change [2] was
> 
> So tree is not bisectable but that's fine? How about telling the
> maintainer: listen, your tree is now broken?
> 
>> already merged into linux-next. I apologize for not reverting the same
>> over the email thread.
>>
>> But change [2] was somehow missed and only my change [1] landed up in
>> Linus's tree, which led to this failure as Arnd described in [3].
> 
> Nothing was missed. That commit should have never been accepted to that
> branch, but, since it happened, you claim that dependency in clk drivers
> should as well go to DTS branch? No, that's just wrong.
> 
> Mistake was that particular commit going to that branch and kernel robot
> told you that which you (and Bjorn, but Bjorn is busy so it is your job
> as contributor) should investigate.
> 

Yeah, it's my bad that I did not point out this issue. I will be more 
careful from next time. Thank you.

Regards,
Jagadeesh

> If that's how commits from quicinc look like I am afraid to take
> anything. I will be on my own, stuck with such issues, because for
> contributor "it is fine".
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>