Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree
From: Greg KH
Date: Wed Apr 12 2023 - 02:12:05 EST
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:47:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:37:23PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > On 4/11/2023 12:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:18:29AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > > On 4/11/2023 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:29:27AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > > > > On 4/11/2023 9:26 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/11/2023 9:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:08:39AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 4/11/2023 9:01 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:40:28PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:55:20AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:38:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > After merging the driver-core tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from include/linux/kernel.h:17,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:4:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c: In function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'mhi_qaic_ctrl_init':
> > > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/export.h:27:22: error: passing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > argument 1 of 'class_create' from incompatible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pointer type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 27 | #define THIS_MODULE (&__this_module)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | struct module *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:544:38: note:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in expansion of macro 'THIS_MODULE'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 544 | mqc_dev_class =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class_create(THIS_MODULE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MHI_QAIC_CTRL_DRIVER_NAME);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/device.h:31,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from include/linux/mhi.h:9,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:5:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/device/class.h:229:54: note:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expected 'const char *' but argument is of type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'struct module *'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 229 | struct class * __must_check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class_create(const char *name);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/accel/qaic/mhi_qaic_ctrl.c:544:25:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > error: too many arguments to function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'class_create'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 544 | mqc_dev_class =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class_create(THIS_MODULE,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MHI_QAIC_CTRL_DRIVER_NAME);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/device/class.h:229:29: note: declared here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 229 | struct class * __must_check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class_create(const char *name);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Caused by commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1aaba11da9aa ("driver core: class: remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > module * from class_create()")
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting with commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 566fc96198b4 ("accel/qaic: Add mhi_qaic_cntl")
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from the drm tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have applied the following merge fix patch for today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:16:57 +1000
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "driver core: class:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > remove module * from class_create()"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting with "accel/qaic: Add mhi_qaic_cntl"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the fixup. Since Dave is out I've made a
> > > > > > > > > > > > note about this in my
> > > > > > > > > > > > handover mail so it won't get lost in the drm-next
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge window pull. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't think we need any other coordination than
> > > > > > > > > > > > mention it in each pull to
> > > > > > > > > > > > Linus, topic tree seems overkill for this. Plus there's no way I can
> > > > > > > > > > > > untangle the drm tree anyway :-).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Want me to submit a patch for the drm tree that moves this to use
> > > > > > > > > > > class_register() instead, which will make the
> > > > > > > > > > > merge/build issue go away
> > > > > > > > > > > for you? That's my long-term goal here anyway, so converting this new
> > > > > > > > > > > code to this api today would be something I have to do eventually :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We kinda closed drm-next for feature work mostly already (just pulling
> > > > > > > > > > stuff in from subtrees), so won't really help for this merge window.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For everything else I think this is up to Oded, I had no
> > > > > > > > > > idea qaic needed
> > > > > > > > > > it's entire own dev class and I don't want to dig into this
> > > > > > > > > > for the risk I
> > > > > > > > > > might freak out :-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Adding Oded.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers, Daniel
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry for the mess.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I made a note to update to class_register() once my drm-misc access is
> > > > > > > > > sorted out. Looks like we'll address the conflict in the merge
> > > > > > > > > window, and
> > > > > > > > > catch the update to the new API in the following release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait, I think the large question is, "why does this need a separate
> > > > > > > > class"? Why are you not using the accel char device and class? That is
> > > > > > > > what everything under accel/ should be using, otherwise why put it in
> > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And what exactly are you using that class for? Just device nodes? If
> > > > > > > > so, how many?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Remember MHI_UCI that then evolved into the WWAN subsystem? I pointed
> > > > > > > out at the time that AIC100/QAIC would need the same functionality.
> > > > > > > You/Jakub told myself/Mani/Loic that a combined implementation is not
> > > > > > > acceptable, and every area needs to implement their own version of
> > > > > > > MHI_UCI.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We took the WWAN subsystem and simplified it to meet our needs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The functionality is QAIC specific, so wedging it into the Accel node
> > > > > > > seems to be a poor fit as it would subject Habana and iVPU to the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I forgot to mention. QAIC is sharing userspace components with WWAN,
> > > > > > so we really cannot diverge from what WWAN has done and define a new API
> > > > > > through the Accel node.
> > > > >
> > > > > So there is an accel/drm_device in the qaic driver, but there's also this
> > > > > different class thing, which I don't get.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yeah if that's an entirely orthogonal thing then I guess that should
> > > > > be in a different driver/subsystem, all supported with the aux bus to
> > > > > multiplex the underlying device.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't found any explanation for what MHI is (or any of the other
> > > > > acrynoms), so I'm entirely lost.
> > > >
> > > > MHI is documented at Documentation/mhi/
> > > > It is also referenced in the QAIC documentation - Documentation/accel/qaic/
> > > >
> > > > It stands for "Modem Host Interface" (arguably a bad name now, but you can
> > > > guess where it came from). It is a Qualcomm hardware block and associated
> > > > software protocol that provides logical channels over a hardware link. Most
> > > > commonly used for PCIe.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much any modern Qualcomm PCIe device implements it. 4G modems, 5G
> > > > modems, Wifi adapters, AIC100, etc. Instead of talking "PCIe", the host
> > > > talks "MHI" to the devices in most cases.
> > > >
> > > > The core implementation for MHI exists in drivers/bus/mhi
> > > >
> > > > MHI_UCI is the MHI Userspace Character Interface. It looked like most buses
> > > > (eg USB) provide some direct device access to userspace. MHI_UCI was
> > > > formulated along those same lines - provide direct userspace access to a
> > > > whitelist of channels. Qualcomm provides some fairly extensive userspace
> > > > utilities, and various communities have developed open source alternatives
> > > > using this mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > MHI_UCI was proposed to the community as the common driver (misc device) for
> > > > all of the MHI devices. The Net folks came along, saw that it was used for
> > > > 4G/5G modems (Wireless Wide Area Network devices or WWAN) and decided that
> > > > they would not tolerate a common implementation. They NACK'd MHI_UCI and
> > > > required that a WWAN specific subsystem be developed which would only
> > > > service WWAN devices. The Net folks decreed that other subsystems which
> > > > needed the same functionality need to have their own copy of the
> > > > implementation.
> > > >
> > > > QAIC devices expose Sahara (a boot time protocol) which has an existing
> > > > userspace that is also used with Modems, although it looks like WWAN doesn't
> > > > currently support those generations of products today. QAIC devices also
> > > > support DIAG, which is currently supported in WWAN. The intent was to add
> > > > the QAIC support for DIAG at a later time since it is not required for the
> > > > bare minimum viable driver.
> > > >
> > > > So, QAIC devices support the same services, would use the same userspace,
> > > > but can't use a common implementation because Jakub(net) doesn't want to
> > > > share and convinced Greg to go along. I'm not interested in pushing a cross
> > > > tree fight (arguably already did that with MHI_UCI). If neither Greg nor
> > > > Net will accept a common implementation that accelerators can use (QAIC),
> > > > then the only place I can fit this is in the Accel area.
> > > >
> > > > Using aux bus seems to make little difference if QAIC is the only consumer
> > > > of this. I'm willing to refactor the implementation with some feedback and
> > > > guidence, but the uAPI seems set in stone due to the existing userspace and
> > > > WWAN (char devs with open/close/read/write/poll).
> > >
> > > Ok, so MHI _is_ the bus. Thanks for the explainer, I should have searched
> > > a bit more in Documentation/
> > >
> > > > What would make you less unhappy?
> > >
> > > The MHI generic userspace driver interface needs to be in drivers/bus/mhi,
> > > not in a random driver. I think we should revert 566fc96198b4
> > > ("accel/qaic: Add mhi_qaic_cntl") and re-land that through Greg's tree (or
> > > wherever mhi patches go to). This of course assuming that the accel
> > > userspace on top of the accel/drm_device does work stand-alone, and it's
> > > just the tooling and other userspace that needs MHI_UCI. If we end with a
> > > non-functional stack due to that, then I guess the entire driver is a bit
> > > up for questions, because at least the accel runtime is supposed to just
> > > run on top of the accel devnode and nothing else. Otherwise container
> > > stuff gets really bad, among a lot of other things.
> > >
> >
> > Looping in the MHI maintainer for your proposal.
> >
> > The accel userspace can work without MHI_UCI.
> >
> > The revert will be non-trivial so I'll look at posting that tomorrow.
>
> Yeah if the full revert is invasive then could we just do a minimal one
> that drops the various register_chrdev/class_create/device_create calls?
> That avoids the conflict plus makes sure no uabi is registers for the
> MHI_UCI. Anything else we can sort out later.
That sounds reasonable to me, thanks!
greg k-h