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@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@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@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 ;)