[U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-spi/master

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:28:16PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22.01.2018 15:59, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:09PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> On 22.01.2018 13:58, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:20:56AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Tom,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please pull this PR.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks!
> >>>> Jagan.
> >>>>
> >>>> The following changes since commit 98691a60abffb44303d7dae6e9e699d0daded930:
> >>>>
> >>>>   Merge git://git.denx.de/u-boot-rockchip (2018-01-09 13:28:51 -0500)
> >>>>
> >>>> are available in the git repository at:
> >>>>
> >>>>   git://git.denx.de/u-boot-spi.git master
> >>>>
> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to b23c685c6f295da3c01dd487f0e003b70299af91:
> >>>>
> >>>>   mips: bmips: enable the SPI flash on the Comtrend AR-5387un (2018-01-22 10:39:13 +0530)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> NAK:
> >>>
> >>> commit 19e3a4856c1cba751a9ecb3931ff0d96a7f169be
> >>> Author: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
> >>> Date:   Sat Jan 20 02:11:34 2018 +0100
> >>>
> >>>     wait_bit: add 8/16/32 BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit
> >>>
> >>>     Add 8/16/32 bits and BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit.
> >>>     This is needed for reading registers that are not aligned to 32 bits, and for
> >>>     Big Endian platforms.
> >>>
> >>>     Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
> >>>     Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck at gmail.com>
> >>>     Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan at openedev.com>
> >>>
> >>> Adds warnings on almost all platforms:
> >>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function ?wait_for_bit_be16?:
> >>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h:76:31: warning: implicit declaration of function ?readw_be? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function ?wait_for_bit_be32?:         w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h:78:31: warning: implicit declaration of function ?readl_be? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> did this commit alone produce those warnings? The patch series itself
> >> builds successfully on Travis CI [1].
> >>
> >> [1] https://travis-ci.org/danielschwierzeck/u-boot/builds/331506036
> > 
> > It builds, yes.  But it adds that warning too:
> > https://travis-ci.org/danielschwierzeck/u-boot/jobs/331506059
> > 
> > And I bisect'd down to the above commit being what adds that warning.
> > 
> > And yes, sigh, I need to something-something to get us back to zero
> > warnings and make -Werror at least a CONFIG option and perhaps default
> > in travis as this isn't the first warning to come in that wasn't noticed
> > as travis didn't fail.
> 
> hm, since when are gcc warnings being ignored? I thought only DTC
> warnings were suppressed. Thus I still expected to have Travis CI builds
> marked as yellow in case of gcc warnings ;)

... wait, you can have Travis CI do yellow for warnings?  That'd be
handy to get back again.  Especially if we can have it for non-DTC
warnings only.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20180122/bc5108b4/attachment.sig>