[staging:staging-testing 357/367] make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpmng.o', needed by 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/mc-bus-driver.o'.

[Laurentiu Tudor]

Hi Greg,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh at linuxfoundation.org]
> 
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:17:59PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > tree:
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.ker
> nel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fgregkh%2Fstaging.git&data
> =01%7C01%7Claurentiu.tudor%40nxp.com%7C751676566b8f465b5fa108d4bb1
> 69974%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=hDMOrVmq8h6I
> MBDuCHgARD44vX58GOPYWIQSqMsdAjo%3D&reserved=0 staging-testing
> > head:   18cd9021ea035db85519391dbc429a5b1d0dd25b
> > commit: b065307fe0ad7859f01ce8560e6bdc590324561a [357/367] staging:
> > fsl-mc: remove dpmng API files
> > config: arm64-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
> > compiler: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 6.1.1-9) 6.1.1 20160705
> > reproduce:
> >         wget
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.git
> hubusercontent.com%2F01org%2Flkp-
> tests%2Fmaster%2Fsbin%2Fmake.cross&data=01%7C01%7Claurentiu.tudor%40
> nxp.com%7C751676566b8f465b5fa108d4bb169974%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92c
> d99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=JvBQcG8MAs7PwDoXxYXe89sqs%2B2ADAiQd7sYCq
> 0YbPE%3D&reserved=0 -O ~/bin/make.cross
> >         chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> >         git checkout b065307fe0ad7859f01ce8560e6bdc590324561a
> >         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >         make.cross ARCH=arm64
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/dpmng.o',
> needed by 'drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/mc-bus-driver.o'.
> >    make[5]: Target '__build' not remade because of errors.
> 
> Crap, this isn't good.  But it looks like further patches fixes this issue, right?

Wow, doesn't look like so. I don't know how I managed to screw this up so badly. :-(

> Laurentiu, any ideas here?  You do always test every individual patch, right? :)

Usually yes, but looks like this time I managed to mess it up. Sorry for the trouble.

> Note, if you all ever got multi-arch building working for this code, I would have
> caught this a lot earlier, that should be something you fix up to get this out of
> staging, no reason to only depend on one arch.

Got it. I don't think there's any arch depended stuff in the code so there shouldn't be issues.
I'll fix up this series and submit a v2 of the whole patch set and after that look into the multi-arch stuff.
Is this ok?

---
Thanks & Best Regards, Laurentiu