| Message ID | 20171108181841.29332-1-alexander.deucher@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:18:41PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> > > ERROR: "__aeabi_uldivmod" [sound/soc/amd/snd-soc-acp-pcm.ko] undefined! > > 64-bit divides require special operations to avoid build errors on 32-bit > systems. Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to be this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an incremental patch.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:18:41PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: >> From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> >> >> ERROR: "__aeabi_uldivmod" [sound/soc/amd/snd-soc-acp-pcm.ko] undefined! >> >> 64-bit divides require special operations to avoid build errors on 32-bit >> systems. > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to be > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > incremental patch. I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. Maybe you already applied it in the interim? Alex
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to be > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > > incremental patch. > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" which was applied at 16:07?
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already > > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to be > > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > > > incremental patch. > > > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of > > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. > > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? > > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > which was applied at 16:07? > I suspect we may be getting hit by chromeos-isms again. In Chrome OS, we don't use Fixes: tags but "FIXUP: <original description>" in the subject (not that I like it, but it is what it is). Guenter
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:48 PM > To: Alex Deucher > Cc: amd-gfx list; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Maling list - DRI developers; > Mukunda, Vijendar; Liam Girdwood; Takashi Iwai; Guenter Roeck; Deucher, > Alexander > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: fix report accurate hw_ptr during dma > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > wrote: > > > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already > > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to be > > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > > > incremental patch. > > > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of > > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. > > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? > > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > which was applied at 16:07? Yes, this is a fix for that patch. It fixes a 64 bit division that wasn't properly handled. Alex
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Deucher, Alexander < Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:48 PM > > To: Alex Deucher > > Cc: amd-gfx list; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Maling list - DRI > developers; > > Mukunda, Vijendar; Liam Girdwood; Takashi Iwai; Guenter Roeck; Deucher, > > Alexander > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: fix report accurate hw_ptr during dma > > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit already > > > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to > be > > > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > > > > incremental patch. > > > > > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of > > > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. > > > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? > > > > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > > which was applied at 16:07? > > Yes, this is a fix for that patch. It fixes a 64 bit division that wasn't > properly handled. > > In that case, the subject should reflect the problem fixed, the description should describe the problem, and there should be a Fixes: tag pointing to the problematic patch. Sorry, I was not aware that the problematic patch is already pending upstream, or I would have submitted a proper patch upstream myself. Guenter > Alex > >
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Deucher, Alexander > <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> wrote: >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:48 PM >> > To: Alex Deucher >> > Cc: amd-gfx list; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Maling list - DRI >> > developers; >> > Mukunda, Vijendar; Liam Girdwood; Takashi Iwai; Guenter Roeck; Deucher, >> > Alexander >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: fix report accurate hw_ptr during dma >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: >> > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit >> > > > already >> > > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears to >> > > > be >> > > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an >> > > > incremental patch. >> > >> > > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend of >> > > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. >> > > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? >> > >> > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" >> > which was applied at 16:07? >> >> Yes, this is a fix for that patch. It fixes a 64 bit division that wasn't >> properly handled. >> > > In that case, the subject should reflect the problem fixed, the description > should describe the problem, and there should be a Fixes: tag pointing to > the problematic patch. I updated the patch subject and added a fixes tag when I resent it after removing the chrome tags. The subject could have been bit better, but I wasn't sure how far to take it since it wasn't my patch originally. Alex > > Sorry, I was not aware that the problematic patch is already pending > upstream, or I would have submitted a proper patch upstream myself. > > Guenter > >> >> Alex >> >
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:13:50AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > > which was applied at 16:07? > I suspect we may be getting hit by chromeos-isms again. In Chrome OS, we > don't use Fixes: tags but "FIXUP: <original description>" in the subject > (not that I like it, but it is what it is). So it probably is the same patch that was just resent with a slightly modified subject line? That's what it looked like initially.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Deucher, Alexander > > <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com> wrote: > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org] > >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:48 PM > >> > To: Alex Deucher > >> > Cc: amd-gfx list; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Maling list - DRI > >> > developers; > >> > Mukunda, Vijendar; Liam Girdwood; Takashi Iwai; Guenter Roeck; > Deucher, > >> > Alexander > >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: fix report accurate hw_ptr during dma > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:40:32PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Like I said in reply to your other mail please don't resubmit > >> > > > already > >> > > > applied patches. The current tip of my topic/amd branch appears > to > >> > > > be > >> > > > this very patch, if there's anything needs changing please send an > >> > > > incremental patch. > >> > > >> > > I'm not seeing this one in your tree either. This is just a resend > of > >> > > Guenter's patch from an hour ago with the chromium stuff removed. > >> > > Maybe you already applied it in the interim? > >> > > >> > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > >> > which was applied at 16:07? > >> > >> Yes, this is a fix for that patch. It fixes a 64 bit division that > wasn't > >> properly handled. > >> > > > > In that case, the subject should reflect the problem fixed, the > description > > should describe the problem, and there should be a Fixes: tag pointing to > > the problematic patch. > > I updated the patch subject and added a fixes tag when I resent it > after removing the chrome tags. The subject could have been bit > better, but I wasn't sure how far to take it since it wasn't my patch > originally. > > In such situations, it is probably better to write a new patch with proper subject and description and add a tag such as "Reported-by:", "Suggested-by:", or "Originally-from:" to give some credit if you feel generous. The attempt to retain my ownership caused way more trouble than it is worth. Guenter > Alex > > > > > Sorry, I was not aware that the problematic patch is already pending > > upstream, or I would have submitted a proper patch upstream myself. > > > > Guenter > > > >> > >> Alex > >> > > >
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:13:50AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" >> > which was applied at 16:07? > >> I suspect we may be getting hit by chromeos-isms again. In Chrome OS, we >> don't use Fixes: tags but "FIXUP: <original description>" in the subject >> (not that I like it, but it is what it is). > > So it probably is the same patch that was just resent with a slightly > modified subject line? That's what it looked like initially. The original patch which was applied to your tree already: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=61add8147942d23519b91f0edc30980d7c14482c That patch as a 64 bit divide in it which was fixed by this patch from Guenter: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-November/157063.html which contained a bunch of Chrome tags. I removed the tags and updated the subject and added a fixes line and resent it as this patch (subject of this thread): https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-November/157076.html Please apply. Sorry for the confusion. Alex
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:35:05PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Deucher, Alexander > >> > Is this different to "ASoC: amd: Report accurate hw_ptr during dma" > >> > which was applied at 16:07? > >> Yes, this is a fix for that patch. It fixes a 64 bit division that wasn't > >> properly handled. Ugh. Two problems here. One is obviously that there's a patch that was sent out only a couple of days ago with a whole bunch of tags about internal testing and review and now you've found issues with it. That's worrying. The other is that you really, really need to get more on top of upstream process. There have been constant problems with this driver and they feel like they're getting worse not better, with the original send of this the noise in the subject lines and body of the e-mail means that what you're sending looks like a case of git send-email CCing people in accidentally rather than a deliberate upstream submission. The constant problems mean that even as I open the e-mail I'm expecting to have to push back on something which isn't great and affects the way I review things. > > In that case, the subject should reflect the problem fixed, the description > > should describe the problem, and there should be a Fixes: tag pointing to > > the problematic patch. > I updated the patch subject and added a fixes tag when I resent it > after removing the chrome tags. The subject could have been bit > better, but I wasn't sure how far to take it since it wasn't my patch > originally. If you're concerned about rewriting commit logs just add a note saying that you did so in the commit log. Please resend normally.
diff --git a/sound/soc/amd/acp-pcm-dma.c b/sound/soc/amd/acp-pcm-dma.c index 13d040a4d26f..ef7e98ad960c 100644 --- a/sound/soc/amd/acp-pcm-dma.c +++ b/sound/soc/amd/acp-pcm-dma.c @@ -856,12 +856,11 @@ static snd_pcm_uframes_t acp_dma_pointer(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK) { if (bytescount > rtd->renderbytescount) bytescount = bytescount - rtd->renderbytescount; - pos = bytescount % buffersize; } else { if (bytescount > rtd->capturebytescount) bytescount = bytescount - rtd->capturebytescount; - pos = bytescount % buffersize; } + pos = do_div(bytescount, buffersize); return bytes_to_frames(runtime, pos); }