From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>,
kashyap.desai@avagotech.com, sumit.saxena@avagotech.com,
uday.lingala@avagotech.com
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, arnd@arndb.de,
hanjun.guo@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org,
grant.likely@linaro.org, leo.duran@amd.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
megaraidlinux.pdl@avagotech.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:37:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <556F1115.3080302@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432867099.24429.4.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
On 5/28/2015 9:38 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 17:09 -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> >Fromhttp://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6.0.pdf,
>> >section 6.2.17 _CCA states that ARM platforms require ACPI _CCA
>> >object to be specified for DMA-cabpable devices. Therefore, this patch
>> >specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED in arm64 Kconfig.
>> >
>> >In addition, to handle the case when _CCA is missing, arm64 would assign
>> >dummy_dma_ops to disable DMA capability of the device.
>> >
>> >Acked-by: Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Mark Salter<msalter@redhat.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> >---
>> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>> > arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 18 ++++++-
>> > arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 3 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >index 4269dba..95307b4 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> > config ARM64
>> > def_bool y
>> >+ select ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_GENERIC_GSI if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
>> > select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >index 9437e3d..f0d6d0b 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> >
>> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
>> >
>> >+#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> > #include <linux/types.h>
>> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>> >
> ^^^ This hunk causes build issues with a couple of drivers:
>
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:69:0: warning: "FALSE" redefined [enabled by default]
> #define FALSE 0
> ^
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h:7,
> from include/linux/pci.h:1460,
> from drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:37:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
>
>
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h:4,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h:60,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:43:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:41: error: expected identifier before ‘(’ token
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
> drivers/scsi/ufs/unipro.h:203:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘FALSE’
> FALSE = 0,
> ^
>
> This happens because the ACPI definitions of TRUE and FALSE conflict
> with local definitions in megaraid and enum declaration in ufs.
>
Mark,
Thanks for pointing this out. Although, I would think that the
megaraid_sas_fp.c should have had the #ifndef to check before defining
the TRUE and FALSE as following.
#ifndef TRUE
#define TRUE 1
#endif
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#endif
This seems to be what other drivers are also doing. If this is okay, I
can send out a fix-up patch for the megaraid driver.
Thanks,
Suravee
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>, <kashyap.desai@avagotech.com>,
<sumit.saxena@avagotech.com>, <uday.lingala@avagotech.com>
Cc: <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, <lenb@kernel.org>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
<will.deacon@arm.com>, <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<arnd@arndb.de>, <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>, <al.stone@linaro.org>,
<grant.likely@linaro.org>, <leo.duran@amd.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, <megaraidlinux.pdl@avagotech.com>,
<linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:37:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <556F1115.3080302@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432867099.24429.4.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
On 5/28/2015 9:38 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 17:09 -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> >Fromhttp://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6.0.pdf,
>> >section 6.2.17 _CCA states that ARM platforms require ACPI _CCA
>> >object to be specified for DMA-cabpable devices. Therefore, this patch
>> >specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED in arm64 Kconfig.
>> >
>> >In addition, to handle the case when _CCA is missing, arm64 would assign
>> >dummy_dma_ops to disable DMA capability of the device.
>> >
>> >Acked-by: Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Mark Salter<msalter@redhat.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> >---
>> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>> > arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 18 ++++++-
>> > arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 3 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >index 4269dba..95307b4 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> > config ARM64
>> > def_bool y
>> >+ select ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_GENERIC_GSI if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
>> > select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >index 9437e3d..f0d6d0b 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> >
>> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
>> >
>> >+#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> > #include <linux/types.h>
>> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>> >
> ^^^ This hunk causes build issues with a couple of drivers:
>
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:69:0: warning: "FALSE" redefined [enabled by default]
> #define FALSE 0
> ^
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h:7,
> from include/linux/pci.h:1460,
> from drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:37:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
>
>
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h:4,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h:60,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:43:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:41: error: expected identifier before ‘(’ token
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
> drivers/scsi/ufs/unipro.h:203:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘FALSE’
> FALSE = 0,
> ^
>
> This happens because the ACPI definitions of TRUE and FALSE conflict
> with local definitions in megaraid and enum declaration in ufs.
>
Mark,
Thanks for pointing this out. Although, I would think that the
megaraid_sas_fp.c should have had the #ifndef to check before defining
the TRUE and FALSE as following.
#ifndef TRUE
#define TRUE 1
#endif
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#endif
This seems to be what other drivers are also doing. If this is okay, I
can send out a fix-up patch for the megaraid driver.
Thanks,
Suravee
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com (Suravee Suthikulanit)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [V5 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:37:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <556F1115.3080302@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432867099.24429.4.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
On 5/28/2015 9:38 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 17:09 -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> >Fromhttp://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6.0.pdf,
>> >section 6.2.17 _CCA states that ARM platforms require ACPI _CCA
>> >object to be specified for DMA-cabpable devices. Therefore, this patch
>> >specifies ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED in arm64 Kconfig.
>> >
>> >In addition, to handle the case when _CCA is missing, arm64 would assign
>> >dummy_dma_ops to disable DMA capability of the device.
>> >
>> >Acked-by: Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Mark Salter<msalter@redhat.com>
>> >Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> >---
>> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>> > arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 18 ++++++-
>> > arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > 3 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >index 4269dba..95307b4 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> >@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> > config ARM64
>> > def_bool y
>> >+ select ACPI_CCA_REQUIRED if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_GENERIC_GSI if ACPI
>> > select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
>> > select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >index 9437e3d..f0d6d0b 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
>> >@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> >
>> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
>> >
>> >+#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> > #include <linux/types.h>
>> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>> >
> ^^^ This hunk causes build issues with a couple of drivers:
>
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:69:0: warning: "FALSE" redefined [enabled by default]
> #define FALSE 0
> ^
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h:7,
> from include/linux/pci.h:1460,
> from drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fp.c:37:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
>
>
> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:58:0,
> from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> from include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h:4,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h:60,
> from drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:43:
> include/acpi/actypes.h:433:41: error: expected identifier before ?(? token
> #define FALSE (1 == 0)
> ^
> drivers/scsi/ufs/unipro.h:203:2: note: in expansion of macro ?FALSE?
> FALSE = 0,
> ^
>
> This happens because the ACPI definitions of TRUE and FALSE conflict
> with local definitions in megaraid and enum declaration in ufs.
>
Mark,
Thanks for pointing this out. Although, I would think that the
megaraid_sas_fp.c should have had the #ifndef to check before defining
the TRUE and FALSE as following.
#ifndef TRUE
#define TRUE 1
#endif
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#endif
This seems to be what other drivers are also doing. If this is okay, I
can send out a fix-up patch for the megaraid driver.
Thanks,
Suravee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-03 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-20 22:09 [V5 PATCH 0/5] ACPI: Introduce support for _CCA object Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` [V5 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-22 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-22 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-22 22:24 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-22 22:24 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-22 22:24 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-22 23:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-22 23:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-23 0:15 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-23 0:15 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-23 0:15 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-23 1:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-23 1:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-23 1:38 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-23 1:38 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-23 1:38 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` [V5 PATCH 2/5] arm64 : Introduce support for ACPI _CCA object Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-29 2:38 ` Mark Salter
2015-05-29 2:38 ` Mark Salter
2015-06-03 14:37 ` Suravee Suthikulanit [this message]
2015-06-03 14:37 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-06-03 14:37 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-06-03 15:03 ` Mark Salter
2015-06-03 15:03 ` Mark Salter
2015-05-20 22:09 ` [V5 PATCH 3/5] device property: Introduces device_dma_is_coherent() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` [V5 PATCH 4/5] crypto: ccp - Unify coherency checking logic with device_dma_is_coherent() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` [V5 PATCH 5/5] amd-xgbe: " Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2015-05-20 22:09 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=556F1115.3080302@amd.com \
--to=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kashyap.desai@avagotech.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=leo.duran@amd.com \
--cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=megaraidlinux.pdl@avagotech.com \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sumit.saxena@avagotech.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=uday.lingala@avagotech.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.