[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 *'

[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 *'

[kernel test robot]

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)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407072331.baglL4Sd-lkp@intel.com/

Note: the linux-next/master HEAD 0b58e108042b0ed28a71cd7edf5175999955b233 builds fine.
      It may have been fixed somewhere.

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8650.c:3573:29: error: incompatible pointer types passing 'struct device *' to parameter of type 'struct platform_device *' [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
    3573 |         ret = qcom_cc_really_probe(&pdev->dev, &cam_cc_sm8650_desc, regmap);
         |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~
   drivers/clk/qcom/common.h:63:57: note: passing argument to parameter 'pdev' here
      63 | extern int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
         |                                                         ^
   1 error generated.


vim +3573 drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8650.c

  3535	
  3536	static int cam_cc_sm8650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  3537	{
  3538		struct regmap *regmap;
  3539		int ret;
  3540	
  3541		ret = devm_pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
  3542		if (ret)
  3543			return ret;
  3544	
  3545		ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&pdev->dev);
  3546		if (ret)
  3547			return ret;
  3548	
  3549		regmap = qcom_cc_map(pdev, &cam_cc_sm8650_desc);
  3550		if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
  3551			pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev);
  3552			return PTR_ERR(regmap);
  3553		}
  3554	
  3555		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll0, regmap, &cam_cc_pll0_config);
  3556		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll1, regmap, &cam_cc_pll1_config);
  3557		clk_rivian_evo_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll2, regmap, &cam_cc_pll2_config);
  3558		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll3, regmap, &cam_cc_pll3_config);
  3559		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll4, regmap, &cam_cc_pll4_config);
  3560		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll5, regmap, &cam_cc_pll5_config);
  3561		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll6, regmap, &cam_cc_pll6_config);
  3562		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll7, regmap, &cam_cc_pll7_config);
  3563		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll8, regmap, &cam_cc_pll8_config);
  3564		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll9, regmap, &cam_cc_pll9_config);
  3565		clk_lucid_ole_pll_configure(&cam_cc_pll10, regmap, &cam_cc_pll10_config);
  3566	
  3567		/* Keep clocks always enabled */
  3568		qcom_branch_set_clk_en(regmap, 0x13318); /* CAM_CC_DRV_AHB_CLK */
  3569		qcom_branch_set_clk_en(regmap, 0x13314); /* CAM_CC_DRV_XO_CLK */
  3570		qcom_branch_set_clk_en(regmap, 0x132ec); /* CAM_CC_GDSC_CLK */
  3571		qcom_branch_set_clk_en(regmap, 0x13308); /* CAM_CC_SLEEP_CLK */
  3572	
> 3573		ret = qcom_cc_really_probe(&pdev->dev, &cam_cc_sm8650_desc, regmap);
  3574	
  3575		pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev);
  3576	
  3577		return ret;
  3578	}
  3579	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

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 *'

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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

> 
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407072331.baglL4Sd-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> Note: the linux-next/master HEAD 0b58e108042b0ed28a71cd7edf5175999955b233 builds fine.
>       It may have been fixed somewhere.
> 
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
>>> drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8650.c:3573:29: error: incompatible pointer types passing 'struct device *' to parameter of type 'struct platform_device *' [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
>     3573 |         ret = qcom_cc_really_probe(&pdev->dev, &cam_cc_sm8650_desc, regmap);
>          |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~
>    drivers/clk/qcom/common.h:63:57: note: passing argument to parameter 'pdev' here
>       63 | extern int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>          |                                                         ^
>    1 error generated.
> 

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]

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 
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].

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240602114439.1611-8-quic_jkona@quicinc.com/
[2] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240507130531.3286999-4-quic_luoj@quicinc.com/#Z31drivers:clk:qcom:common.c
[3] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ed757bc4-38ba-420a-9da8-d7de1f1123f6@app.fastmail.com/#t

Thanks,
Jagadeesh

>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407072331.baglL4Sd-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>> Note: the linux-next/master HEAD 0b58e108042b0ed28a71cd7edf5175999955b233 builds fine.
>>        It may have been fixed somewhere.
>>
>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>
>>>> drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8650.c:3573:29: error: incompatible pointer types passing 'struct device *' to parameter of type 'struct platform_device *' [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
>>      3573 |         ret = qcom_cc_really_probe(&pdev->dev, &cam_cc_sm8650_desc, regmap);
>>           |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~
>>     drivers/clk/qcom/common.h:63:57: note: passing argument to parameter 'pdev' here
>>        63 | extern int qcom_cc_really_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>           |                                                         ^
>>     1 error generated.
>>

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 *'

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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.

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

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]

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
>