Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register
header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document
the minimal Python version supported by the script.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version
GNU tar 1.28 tar --version
gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version
mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version
+Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version
====================== =============== ========================================
.. [#f1] Sphinx is needed only to build the Kernel documentation
---
base-commit: 704ba27ac55579704ba1289392448b0c66b56258
change-id: 20240509-python-version-a8b6ca2125ff
Best regards,
--
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>On Thu, 09 May 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version Python 3.5 reached end-of-life 3½ years ago [1]. What's the point in using anything older than the oldest supported version of Python, i.e. 3.8 at this time? BR, Jani. [1] https://devguide.python.org/versions/ > ====================== =============== ======================================== > > .. [#f1] Sphinx is needed only to build the Kernel documentation > > --- > base-commit: 704ba27ac55579704ba1289392448b0c66b56258 > change-id: 20240509-python-version-a8b6ca2125ff > > Best regards, -- Jani Nikula, Intel
Em Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:38 +0300 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> escreveu: > On Thu, 09 May 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: > > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > --- > > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version > > Python 3.5 reached end-of-life 3½ years ago [1]. What's the point in > using anything older than the oldest supported version of Python, > i.e. 3.8 at this time? What's the point of breaking compilation with on older distros? The idea of minimal versions here is to specify the absolute minimum version that it is required for the build to happen. If 3.5 is the minimal one, then be it. - Now, a criteria is needed to raise the minimal version. IMO, the minimal version shall be at least the minimal one present on most used LTS distros that are not EOL. I would look for at least 4 such distros: - Debian Looking at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS, Debian 10 EOL will be on June, 2024. Looking at: https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian Debian 10 uses python 3.7.3. - Looking at Distrowatch for openSUSE Leap 15.5, it uses Python 3.6.15 and has an EOL schedule for Dec, 2024. - RHEL 8.9 uses a bigger version than those two - 3.11.5 - again looking at Distrowatch to check it. - SLES 15 SP4 and above uses Python 3.11, according with: https://www.suse.com/c/python-3-11-stack-for-suse-linux-enterprise-15/ From the above, IMO kernel shall support building with Python 3.6 at least until the end of this year. Regards, Mauro
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> wrote: > Em Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:38 +0300 > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> escreveu: > >> On Thu, 09 May 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: >> > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register >> > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document >> > the minimal Python version supported by the script. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >> > --- >> > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version >> > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version >> > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version >> > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version >> > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version >> >> Python 3.5 reached end-of-life 3½ years ago [1]. What's the point in >> using anything older than the oldest supported version of Python, >> i.e. 3.8 at this time? > > What's the point of breaking compilation with on older distros? > The idea of minimal versions here is to specify the absolute minimum > version that it is required for the build to happen. If 3.5 is > the minimal one, then be it. AFAICT 3.5 was an arbitrary rather than a deliberate choice. We should at least be aware *why* we'd be sticking to old versions. Minimum versions here also means sticking to features available in said versions, for Python just as well as for GCC or any other tool. That's not zero cost. I guess there are two angles here too. The absolute minimum version currently required, and the, uh, maximum the minimum version can be safely bumped to. Say, you want to use a feature not available in the current minimum, how far up can you bump the version to? Could we define and document the criteria (e.g. based on distros as you suggest below) so we don't have to repeat the discussion? BR, Jani. > > - > > Now, a criteria is needed to raise the minimal version. IMO, the > minimal version shall be at least the minimal one present on most > used LTS distros that are not EOL. > > I would look for at least 4 such distros: > > - Debian > > Looking at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS, Debian 10 EOL will be on > June, 2024. > > Looking at: > > https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian > > Debian 10 uses python 3.7.3. > > - Looking at Distrowatch for openSUSE Leap 15.5, it uses Python > 3.6.15 and has an EOL schedule for Dec, 2024. > > - RHEL 8.9 uses a bigger version than those two - 3.11.5 - again > looking at Distrowatch to check it. > > - SLES 15 SP4 and above uses Python 3.11, according with: > https://www.suse.com/c/python-3-11-stack-for-suse-linux-enterprise-15/ > > From the above, IMO kernel shall support building with Python 3.6 > at least until the end of this year. > > Regards, > Mauro -- Jani Nikula, Intel
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:09 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 May 2024, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> wrote: > > Em Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:38 +0300 > > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> escreveu: > > > >> On Thu, 09 May 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > >> > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > >> > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > >> > --- > >> > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > >> > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > >> > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > >> > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > >> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > >> > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > >> > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > >> > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > >> > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version > >> > >> Python 3.5 reached end-of-life 3½ years ago [1]. What's the point in > >> using anything older than the oldest supported version of Python, > >> i.e. 3.8 at this time? > > > > What's the point of breaking compilation with on older distros? > > The idea of minimal versions here is to specify the absolute minimum > > version that it is required for the build to happen. If 3.5 is > > the minimal one, then be it. > > AFAICT 3.5 was an arbitrary rather than a deliberate choice. We should > at least be aware *why* we'd be sticking to old versions. > > Minimum versions here also means sticking to features available in said > versions, for Python just as well as for GCC or any other tool. That's > not zero cost. At this point, the cost to having a lower minimum version is pretty small, so I'm not worrying too much about it. Maybe once kernel developers discover mako, and start generating more at build time, we'll have to re-evaluate. ;-) BR, -R > I guess there are two angles here too. The absolute minimum version > currently required, and the, uh, maximum the minimum version can be > safely bumped to. Say, you want to use a feature not available in the > current minimum, how far up can you bump the version to? > > Could we define and document the criteria (e.g. based on distros as you > suggest below) so we don't have to repeat the discussion? > > > BR, > Jani. > > > > > - > > > > Now, a criteria is needed to raise the minimal version. IMO, the > > minimal version shall be at least the minimal one present on most > > used LTS distros that are not EOL. > > > > I would look for at least 4 such distros: > > > > - Debian > > > > Looking at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS, Debian 10 EOL will be on > > June, 2024. > > > > Looking at: > > > > https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian > > > > Debian 10 uses python 3.7.3. > > > > - Looking at Distrowatch for openSUSE Leap 15.5, it uses Python > > 3.6.15 and has an EOL schedule for Dec, 2024. > > > > - RHEL 8.9 uses a bigger version than those two - 3.11.5 - again > > looking at Distrowatch to check it. > > > > - SLES 15 SP4 and above uses Python 3.11, according with: > > https://www.suse.com/c/python-3-11-stack-for-suse-linux-enterprise-15/ > > > > From the above, IMO kernel shall support building with Python 3.6 > > at least until the end of this year. > > > > Regards, > > Mauro > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel
On Fri May 10, 2024 at 10:04 PM CEST, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:09 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2024, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Em Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:38 +0300 > > > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> escreveu: > > > > > >> On Thu, 09 May 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote: > > >> > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > > >> > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > > >> > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > >> > --- > > >> > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > >> > > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > >> > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > > >> > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > >> > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > >> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > > >> > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > > >> > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > > >> > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > > >> > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version > > >> > > >> Python 3.5 reached end-of-life 3½ years ago [1]. What's the point in > > >> using anything older than the oldest supported version of Python, > > >> i.e. 3.8 at this time? > > > > > > What's the point of breaking compilation with on older distros? > > > The idea of minimal versions here is to specify the absolute minimum > > > version that it is required for the build to happen. If 3.5 is > > > the minimal one, then be it. > > > > AFAICT 3.5 was an arbitrary rather than a deliberate choice. We should > > at least be aware *why* we'd be sticking to old versions. > > > > Minimum versions here also means sticking to features available in said > > versions, for Python just as well as for GCC or any other tool. That's > > not zero cost. > > At this point, the cost to having a lower minimum version is pretty > small, so I'm not worrying too much about it. > > Maybe once kernel developers discover mako, and start generating more > at build time, we'll have to re-evaluate. ;-) You're making an interesting point. Does the build dependency here denote Python (& standard library) or do we assume that if people have Python installed that they can also install arbitrary extra packages? Would a Mako dependency need to be explicitly mentioned here? Thierry
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes: > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version > ====================== =============== ======================================== Is it really optional - can you build the driver without it? This document needs some help... I'm missing a number of things that are *not* marked as "optional" (jfsutils, reiserfsprogs, pcmciautils, ppp, ...) and somehow my system works fine :) It would be nice to document *why* users might need a specific tool. But I guess we aren't going to do that now. I can apply this, but I do wonder about the "optional" marking. Thanks, jon
On Thu May 9, 2024 at 6:48 PM CEST, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes: > > > The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register > > header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document > > the minimal Python version supported by the script. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > --- > > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version > > GNU tar 1.28 tar --version > > gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version > > mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version > > +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version > > ====================== =============== ======================================== > > Is it really optional - can you build the driver without it? > > This document needs some help... I'm missing a number of things that are > *not* marked as "optional" (jfsutils, reiserfsprogs, pcmciautils, ppp, > ...) and somehow my system works fine :) It would be nice to document > *why* users might need a specific tool. > > But I guess we aren't going to do that now. I can apply this, but I do > wonder about the "optional" marking. I guess it depends a bit on what exactly "optional" implies. It's optional in the sense that you can easily disable the driver and then build without Python. So does "optional" mean that allmodconfig for all platforms builds without the dependency? Or does it mean some definition of "core" kernel builds for a set of defined platforms? Maybe this really needs to be annotated with the exact Kconfig options that need this. Although that could get out of hands rather quickly. At some point we may have to list a *lot* of these options. Alternatively, maybe Kconfig could be taught about build dependencies? Thierry
Hi Thierry,
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 7:07 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe Kconfig could be taught about build dependencies?
git grep "depends on \$(" -- "*Kconf*"
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Fri May 31, 2024 at 9:33 AM CEST, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 7:07 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alternatively, maybe Kconfig could be taught about build dependencies?
>
> git grep "depends on \$(" -- "*Kconf*"
Duh... of course there's something like this already. =)
Maybe something like the attached patch?
Thierry
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 09:33:12AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 7:07 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alternatively, maybe Kconfig could be taught about build dependencies?
>
> git grep "depends on \$(" -- "*Kconf*"
>
I'd rather not do that. The driver option disappearing just because the
pythong vesion is incorrect might be misleading to the users. Anyway,
with the Abhinav's patch the issue should be fixed (and I'll take care
not to break it again). Sorry for all the troubles.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 5/9/2024 9:48 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> writes: > >> The drm/msm driver had adopted using Python3 script to generate register >> header files instead of shipping pre-generated header files. Document >> the minimal Python version supported by the script. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >> --- >> Documentation/process/changes.rst | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> index 5685d7bfe4d0..8d225a9f65a2 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst >> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ cpio any cpio --version >> GNU tar 1.28 tar --version >> gtags (optional) 6.6.5 gtags --version >> mkimage (optional) 2017.01 mkimage --version >> +Python (optional) 3.5.x python3 --version >> ====================== =============== ======================================== > > Is it really optional - can you build the driver without it? > True, we cannot build the driver now without it. So we should be dropping the optional tag. With that addressed, Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > This document needs some help... I'm missing a number of things that are > *not* marked as "optional" (jfsutils, reiserfsprogs, pcmciautils, ppp, > ...) and somehow my system works fine :) It would be nice to document > *why* users might need a specific tool. > > But I guess we aren't going to do that now. I can apply this, but I do > wonder about the "optional" marking. > > Thanks, > > jon
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.