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 <nolt...@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 <nolt...@gmail.com> > >>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierz...@gmail.com> > >>> Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <ja...@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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot