On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:31 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 23:29 +0000, osstest service owner wrote: > > > flight 61295 linux-linus real [real] > > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/61295/ > > > > > > Regressions :-( > > > > > > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > > > including tests which could not be run: > > > [...] > > > test-armhf-armhf-xl-cubietruck 6 xen-boot fail REGR. > > > vs. 59254 > > > [...] > > > > The bisector has fingered[0] a merge commit, f36fc04e4cdd, from the clk > > tree. > > > [...] > > Between 26f8b7edc9ea and f36fc04e4cdd there is: > > > > * no diff to arch/arm/mach-sunxi/ > > * addition or changes of "clock-indices" property in many > > arch/arm/boot/dts/*sun?i* > > * a bunch of changes in drivers/clk/*sun?i* > > This turned out to be an incompatible change between the kernel and the > DTB. osstest currently keeps using the Debian supplied DTB for all tests, > rather than picking up the one from the kernel it has built. > > I've reported this upstream: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-October/373753.html > > In theory the DTB are supposed to be a stable API and the kernel is > supposed to work with shipped DTBS. The reality doesn't really live up to > this ideal though and I don't think it is really our job to fight this, so > I plan to adjust osstest to use the DTBs built by ts-kernel-build. In fact > this is probably preferable for us since it means we will be testing Xen > with a variety of DTBs over the different kernel versions, instead of just > the ones which Debian supplies. > > I'll cook up some osstest patches today.
I completely agree _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
