Re: [PATCH 1/1] Kernel compile bug in 2.6.22.6/7 {maybe more} ARM/StrongARM

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 08:31:32AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
 > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 05:53:57PM -0500, Greg.Chandler@wellsfargo.com wrote:
 > > I was building a kernel for an iPaq {SA1110} and ran into this.
 > > 
 > > linux-2.6.22.7/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/generic.c:
 > > Has a: #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
 > > Then afterwards there is a: #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_SA1100) ||
 > > defined(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_SA1110)
 > > who's else section redefines the cpufreq_get function inhereited from
 > > the header....
 > > 
 > > I'm guessing no one ever ended up in the "else" section until now, and
 > > that the header was added some time ago and no one caught this.
 > > This patch worked for me to get rid of the compile time problems.  I'm
 > > having issues with the kernel, but as far as I can tell they are form
 > > the Frame buffer and not because of this.  If this assessment is correct
 > > {the not needing this code anymore} then please pass this along so it
 > > makes it into an upcoming release.
 > > 
 > > --- linux-2.6.22.7/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/generic.c.orig  2007-09-24
 > > 17:36:21.000000000 -0500
 > > +++ linux-2.6.22.7/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/generic.c       2007-09-24
 > > 17:40:02.000000000 -0500
 > > @@ -107,15 +107,6 @@ unsigned int sa11x0_getspeed(unsigned in
 > >         return cclk_frequency_100khz[PPCR & 0xf] * 100;
 > >  }
 > > 
 > > -#else
 > > -/*
 > > - * We still need to provide this so building without cpufreq works.
 > > - */
 > > -unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 > > -{
 > > -       return cclk_frequency_100khz[PPCR & 0xf] * 100;
 > > -}
 > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_get);
 > >  #endif
 > > 
 > >  /*
 > 
 > No.  That code is required - the StrongARM 1100 framebuffer driver
 > *needs* to know what the CPU frequency is so it can set the pixel
 > clock divisor.
 > 
 > The real problem is the silly people who added this to cpufreq.h:
 > 
 > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
 > unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get(unsigned int cpu);
 > unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu);
 > #else
 > static inline unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get(unsigned int cpu)
 > {
 >         return 0;
 > }
 > static inline unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 > {
 >         return 0;
 > }
 > #endif
 > 
 > which utterly bogus.

Which came from ...

commit 184c44d2049c4db7ef6ec65794546954da2c6a0e
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed May 2 19:27:08 2007 +0200

    [PATCH] x86-64: fix x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share
    
    Fix for the following patch. Provide dummy cpufreq functions when
    CPUFREQ is not compiled in.
    
    Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
    Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>

I don't remember seeing any problem here, so I'm not entirely sure what
this was supposed to be fixing.  Perhaps the -mm-esque patch name
will provide Andrew/Andi clues. It lacks sufficient information for
my brain to guess what the problem was.

"Fix for the following patch" is also something that really should
never be added to a git changelog too, because 'next' means absolutely
nothing to me, nor I expect 99% of changelog readers.


Cc's added.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk