* Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
@ 2014-09-16 11:44 ` Krzysztof Kozłowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozłowski @ 2014-09-16 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 15.09.2014 19:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:58AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> Today's -next got a build failure in ARM allmodconfig due to platsmp.c:
>>
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>> | CC arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o
>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s: Assembler messages:
>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:423: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:428: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:429: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb '
>> | scripts/Makefile.build:257: recipe for target 'arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o' failed
>>
>> Looks like we need a compiler flags override for that file.
>
> Or.. the question is why a .c file is not using the proper macros.
Actually I am the one to blame for build failure (commit: "ARM: EXYNOS:
Move code from hotplug.c to platsmp.c"). The problem is
v7_exit_coherency_flush() which I think does not make sense on ARMv6.
I'll replace the ISB and DSB commands with macros but the real question
is whether the mach-exynos/platsmp.c file and mach-exynos directory
should be compiled when CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is not defined?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
2014-09-16 11:44 ` Krzysztof Kozłowski
@ 2014-09-16 11:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2014-09-16 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozłowski
Cc: Mark Brown, linux-samsung-soc, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
kernel-build-reports, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:44:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 19:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:58AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's -next got a build failure in ARM allmodconfig due to platsmp.c:
>>>
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | CC arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s: Assembler messages:
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:423: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:428: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:429: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb '
>>> | scripts/Makefile.build:257: recipe for target 'arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o' failed
>>>
>>> Looks like we need a compiler flags override for that file.
>>
>> Or.. the question is why a .c file is not using the proper macros.
>
> Actually I am the one to blame for build failure (commit: "ARM: EXYNOS:
> Move code from hotplug.c to platsmp.c"). The problem is
> v7_exit_coherency_flush() which I think does not make sense on ARMv6.
>
> I'll replace the ISB and DSB commands with macros but the real question
> is whether the mach-exynos/platsmp.c file and mach-exynos directory
> should be compiled when CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is not defined?
It's entirely possible that a kernel will be configured to support ARMv6
and ARMv7, which can also include exynos support. In this case, it will
be built using compiler flags for ARMv6, since ARMv7 is compatible with
the ARMv6 ISA (even though a few instructions are deprecated.)
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
@ 2014-09-16 11:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2014-09-16 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:44:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Koz?owski wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 19:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:58AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's -next got a build failure in ARM allmodconfig due to platsmp.c:
>>>
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef] <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | CC arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s: Assembler messages:
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:423: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:428: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:429: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb '
>>> | scripts/Makefile.build:257: recipe for target 'arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o' failed
>>>
>>> Looks like we need a compiler flags override for that file.
>>
>> Or.. the question is why a .c file is not using the proper macros.
>
> Actually I am the one to blame for build failure (commit: "ARM: EXYNOS:
> Move code from hotplug.c to platsmp.c"). The problem is
> v7_exit_coherency_flush() which I think does not make sense on ARMv6.
>
> I'll replace the ISB and DSB commands with macros but the real question
> is whether the mach-exynos/platsmp.c file and mach-exynos directory
> should be compiled when CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is not defined?
It's entirely possible that a kernel will be configured to support ARMv6
and ARMv7, which can also include exynos support. In this case, it will
be built using compiler flags for ARMv6, since ARMv7 is compatible with
the ARMv6 ISA (even though a few instructions are deprecated.)
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
2014-09-16 11:44 ` Krzysztof Kozłowski
@ 2014-09-16 12:01 ` Tomasz Figa
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Figa @ 2014-09-16 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozłowski, Russell King - ARM Linux, Mark Brown
Cc: linux-samsung-soc, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
kernel-build-reports, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
On 16.09.2014 13:44, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 19:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:58AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's -next got a build failure in ARM allmodconfig due to platsmp.c:
>>>
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in
>>> return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef]
>>> <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in
>>> return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef]
>>> <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | CC arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s: Assembler messages:
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:423: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:428: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:429: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `dsb '
>>> | scripts/Makefile.build:257: recipe for target
>>> 'arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o' failed
>>>
>>> Looks like we need a compiler flags override for that file.
>>
>> Or.. the question is why a .c file is not using the proper macros.
>
> Actually I am the one to blame for build failure (commit: "ARM: EXYNOS:
> Move code from hotplug.c to platsmp.c"). The problem is
> v7_exit_coherency_flush() which I think does not make sense on ARMv6.
>
> I'll replace the ISB and DSB commands with macros but the real question
> is whether the mach-exynos/platsmp.c file and mach-exynos directory
> should be compiled when CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is not defined?
I think the problematic case here is v6+v7 multiplatform, where even
though CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is defined, compiler flags for lowest common
denominator (v6) must be used. Using appropriate macros should fix the
problem indeed.
Best regards,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
@ 2014-09-16 12:01 ` Tomasz Figa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Figa @ 2014-09-16 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 16.09.2014 13:44, Krzysztof Koz?owski wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 19:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:58AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Build bot for Mark Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's -next got a build failure in ARM allmodconfig due to platsmp.c:
>>>
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in
>>> return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef]
>>> <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: warning: incorrect type in
>>> return expression (different address spaces)
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: expected void [noderef]
>>> <asn:2>*
>>> | arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c:198:31: got void *
>>> | CC arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s: Assembler messages:
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:423: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:428: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `isb '
>>> | /tmp/ccC9fkwF.s:429: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
>>> mode `dsb '
>>> | scripts/Makefile.build:257: recipe for target
>>> 'arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.o' failed
>>>
>>> Looks like we need a compiler flags override for that file.
>>
>> Or.. the question is why a .c file is not using the proper macros.
>
> Actually I am the one to blame for build failure (commit: "ARM: EXYNOS:
> Move code from hotplug.c to platsmp.c"). The problem is
> v7_exit_coherency_flush() which I think does not make sense on ARMv6.
>
> I'll replace the ISB and DSB commands with macros but the real question
> is whether the mach-exynos/platsmp.c file and mach-exynos directory
> should be compiled when CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is not defined?
I think the problematic case here is v6+v7 multiplatform, where even
though CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is defined, compiler flags for lowest common
denominator (v6) must be used. Using appropriate macros should fix the
problem indeed.
Best regards,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Exynos build failure in -next allmodconfig
2014-09-16 12:01 ` Tomasz Figa
@ 2014-09-16 15:54 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-09-16 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomasz Figa
Cc: Krzysztof Kozłowski, Russell King - ARM Linux,
linux-samsung-soc, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
kernel-build-reports, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 360 bytes --]
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I think the problematic case here is v6+v7 multiplatform, where even
> though CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is defined, compiler flags for lowest common
> denominator (v6) must be used. Using appropriate macros should fix the
> problem indeed.
Right, multiplatform ends up generating such a configuration.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread