Qcom 6.18.y SCMI - #652
Conversation
|
Merge Check Failed: CR Not Eligible for Merge CR 4559569 is not eligible for merge. The parent software image for kernel.qli.2.0 is not development complete. Entity: Please ensure the CR passes both CCT (ComponentChangeTasks) and ICT (Integration Change Tasks) validations. |
7dbf88f to
959807b
Compare
PR #652 — validate-patchPR: #652
Final Summary
|
PR #652 — checker-log-analyzerPR: #652
Detailed report: Full report
|
Test Matrix
|
Salendarsingh Gaud (sgaud-quic)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No Mainline PR in CR
|
@qualcomm-linux/kernel This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity and will automatically close after an additional 5 days. |
Have added Thanks, |
PR #652 — validate-patchPR: #652
Final Summary
|
PR #652 — checker-log-analyzerPR: #652
Detailed report: Full report
|
Test Matrix
|
|
LXQUALCOMM you need to rebase PR on tip, merging qcom-6.18.y with PR is not correct |
Test Matrix
|
PR #652 — validate-patchPR: #652
Final Summary
|
PR #652 — checker-log-analyzerPR: #652
Detailed report: Full report
|
Some device drivers (and out-of-tree modules) might want to define device-specific device governors. Rather than restricting all of them to be a part of drivers/devfreq/ (which is not possible for out-of-tree drivers anyway) move governor.h to include/linux/devfreq-governor.h and update all drivers to use it. The devfreq_cpu_data is only used internally, by the passive governor, so it is moved to the driver source rather than being a part of the public interface. Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org> Acked-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/patch/20251030-governor-public-v2-1-432a11a9975a@oss.qualcomm.com/ Signed-off-by: Xin Liu <xin.liu@oss.qualcomm.com>
…ntation Add QCOM System Control Management Interface (SCMI) Generic Vendor Extensions Protocol documentation. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260507062237.78051-2-sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com/ Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibi.sankar@oss.qualcomm.com> Signed-off-by: Xin Liu <xin.liu@oss.qualcomm.com>
986a186 to
03a6cfd
Compare
I have rebased it |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed during the test submission phase, not during compilation. All test jobs failed to submit to LAVA due to a network timeout:
VerdictNo compilation errors found. The PR changes do not introduce any build failures. The workflow failure is due to infrastructure issues (LAVA server connectivity timeout), not code defects. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSBoth kernel builds completed successfully:
Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed due to test infrastructure issues, not compilation errors:
VerdictNo compilation errors were introduced by this PR. The kernel builds cleanly. The workflow failure is due to external test infrastructure issues unrelated to the code changes in PR #652. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ PASSEDThe kernel compilation completed successfully for both standard and RT configurations. The workflow failure was caused by LAVA test infrastructure issues, not compilation errors.
VerdictNo compilation errors were introduced by this PR. The build succeeded completely. The workflow failure is due to LAVA job submission failures (test infrastructure issue), not code problems. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652
VerdictThe kernel build completed successfully. The workflow failure was caused by a LAVA test submission timeout ( 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed due to LAVA test infrastructure timeout, not build errors:
Error: VerdictThis PR introduces ZERO compilation errors. The workflow failure is an infrastructure issue (LAVA server connectivity timeout), not a code quality issue. All kernel builds succeeded. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Test Status: ❌ FAILED (Infrastructure Issue)All 10 test jobs failed due to LAVA server connectivity timeout:
VerdictNo build errors were introduced by this PR. The workflow failure is due to LAVA test infrastructure connectivity issues, not code problems. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 VerdictNo build failures detected. Both the standard and RT kernel builds completed successfully. The workflow failure was caused by LAVA test job submission timeouts (infrastructure issue), not by compilation errors introduced in this PR. Build Status:
Root Cause: All 10 test jobs failed to submit to 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652
VerdictNo compilation errors found. Both standard and RT kernel builds completed successfully. The workflow failure was caused by a LAVA test infrastructure timeout (HTTPSConnectionPool read timeout connecting to lava-oss.qualcomm.com), which is unrelated to the PR code changes. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
Test Matrix
|
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652
VerdictThe kernel builds completed successfully. The workflow failure was caused by LAVA test job submission timeouts (network connectivity issues with lava-oss.qualcomm.com), not by any compilation errors. Both the standard and RT kernel builds passed without errors. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSBoth kernel builds completed successfully:
Workflow Failure ReasonThe workflow was marked as failed due to test job submission failures, not compilation errors.
VerdictNo compilation errors were introduced by this PR. The builds succeeded completely. The workflow failure is due to test infrastructure issues (LAVA job submission), not code problems in the PR. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed due to infrastructure issues, not code problems:
All 10 test jobs failed to submit due to LAVA server connectivity issues:
VerdictZero compilation errors. The PR changes build cleanly. The workflow failure is caused by external LAVA infrastructure connectivity issues, not by the PR code changes. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652
VerdictNo build errors detected. Both the standard build and RT build completed successfully. The workflow failure was caused by LAVA test infrastructure connectivity issues (connection timeouts to lava-oss.qualcomm.com), not by any code changes in this PR. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSBoth kernel builds completed successfully:
Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed during the test submission phase, not during compilation. All 9 LAVA test jobs failed to submit due to a connectivity timeout when attempting to reach VerdictZero compilation errors. The workflow failure is an infrastructure/connectivity issue unrelated to the PR changes. The PR successfully builds both standard and RT kernels with no errors or warnings. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULNo compilation errors found. Both the standard and RT kernel builds completed successfully. Test Status: ❌ FAILED (Infrastructure Issue)All LAVA test submissions failed due to connection timeout to
VerdictThis PR introduces zero compilation errors. The workflow failure is caused by LAVA server connectivity issues, not by code changes in the PR. The kernel builds cleanly with all PR changes applied. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652
VerdictNo compilation errors detected. Both the standard build and RT build completed successfully. The workflow failure appears to be in a non-build step (likely testing or deployment phase). 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ Build SucceededThe kernel compilation completed successfully with no errors. The workflow failure is not related to compilation errors but appears to be a test infrastructure issue.
VerdictNo compilation errors were introduced by this PR. The build succeeded. The workflow failure is due to missing test artifacts, which indicates a test infrastructure or test execution issue unrelated to the PR's code changes. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Workflow Failure Root CauseThe workflow failed during the test submission phase, not during compilation. All 10 LAVA test job submissions failed due to infrastructure issues:
Verdict0 compilation errors. The PR changes introduce no build failures. The workflow failure is caused by LAVA server connectivity issues (lava-oss.qualcomm.com), not by code changes in this PR. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ PASSEDBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Test Status: ❌ FAILED (Infrastructure Issue)All 10 LAVA test job submissions failed due to connectivity issues with
VerdictNo build errors were introduced by this PR. The workflow failure is entirely due to LAVA infrastructure connectivity issues, not code problems. The PR changes (devfreq governor header refactoring and SCMI vendor extensions) compiled cleanly for both standard and RT kernel configurations. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 ✅ Build Status: SUCCESSBoth kernel builds completed successfully:
❌ Workflow Status: FAILED (Infrastructure Issue)The workflow failed during LAVA test job submission, not during compilation.
VerdictNo build errors were introduced by this PR. The workflow failure is due to a LAVA infrastructure connectivity timeout (HTTPSConnectionPool read timeout after 20 seconds), not code issues. All kernel compilation completed successfully. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
🔨 Build Failure Analysis — PR #652PR: #652 Build Status: ✅ SUCCESSFULBoth kernel builds (standard and RT) completed successfully with no compilation errors. Workflow Status: ❌ FAILEDThe workflow failed due to LAVA test job submission failures, not build errors.
VerdictNo compilation errors were introduced by this PR. The kernel built successfully. The workflow failure is due to infrastructure issues with LAVA job submission, not code problems in the PR. 📎 Detailed analysis: Full report |
PR #652 — validate-patchPR: #652
Final Summary
|
PR #652 — checker-log-analyzerPR: #652
Detailed report: Full report
|
|
LXQUALCOMM can you please update on the comments on Upstream change ? |
Test Matrix
|
Upstream patches with RFC names cannot enter the kernel community in the short term. We only need to ensure that a working version enters first. I have confirmed that the current patch is working |
The application of SCMI patch on Hamoa, as well as some prerequisite code required for applying SCMI driver
CRs-Fixed: 4559569