From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Kristiansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] next: openrisc: Fix build Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:13:36 +0300 Message-ID: <20140927041334.GA16373@chokladfabriken.org> References: <1411747539-28308-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <5425A7B5.10209@southpole.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5425A7B5.10209@southpole.se> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-bounces@lists.openrisc.net Errors-To: linux-bounces@lists.openrisc.net To: Jonas Bonn Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux@lists.openrisc.net, Guenter Roeck List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Jonas Bonn wrote: > On 09/26/2014 06:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > openrisc:defconfig fails to build in next-20140926 with the following error. > > > > In file included from arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c:31:0: > > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_get_arch': > > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h:77:9: error: 'EM_OPENRISC' undeclared > > > > Fix by moving EM_OPENRISC to include/uapi/linux/elf-em.h. > > > > Fixes: ce5d112827e5 ("ARCH: AUDIT: implement syscall_get_arch for all arches") > > Cc: Eric Paris > > Cc: Stefan Kristiansson > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck > > --- > > v2: Only move EM_OPENRISC. > > > > Another possible solution for the problem would be to include asm/elf.h > > in arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c. I had actually submitted a patch with > > that fix back in August (maybe that is where I remembered the problem from). > > Wonder what happened with that patch. > > > > Would it make sense to drop EM_OR32 and replace it with EM_OPENRISC where > > it is used ? binutils seems to suggest that EM_OPENRISC is the "official" > > definition. > > Do we even use EM_OR32? Will the kernel build with the old toolchain if > we drop it? If yes, drop it altogether... I don't recall the details as > to why we kept that define around at all. And really, why bother > supporting the old toolchain at all... it's been at least two or three > years since EM_OPENRISC was added, hopefully people have moved on. If > users want to upgrade their kernel, they can update the toolchain, too, > at this point. > EM_OPENRISC was added about ten years ago, and when the OR32 things in binutils was removed in favour for OR1K earlier this year, EM_OR1K was added as an alias to EM_OPENRISC. With that said, I'm putting in a vote for removing EM_OR32 as well. Stefan