From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:19:11 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: vexpress: remove incorrect BSYM usage In-Reply-To: <20120110120402.GB2336@linaro.org> References: <1326149146-19756-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1326149146-19756-4-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <20120110120402.GB2336@linaro.org> Message-ID: <4F0DA86F.3020401@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/10/2012 06:04 AM, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:45:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> From: Rob Herring >> >> BSYM macro is only needed for assembly files and its usage in c files is >> wrong, so remove it. The linker will correctly set bit 0 for Thumb2 >> kernels. > > Pawel posted a patch to do this for realview and vexpress: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-December/077014.html > > I don't know whether this is currently headed for merge. Without the > ENDPROC additions in plat-versatile/platsmp.S, taking the BSYM away > causes breakage. (The missing ENDPROC is the true bug here.) Pawel, what's the status? I can pick up your patch if it's not queued up. > > The changes look sensible, but break realview and vexpress as-is. > I suggest you coordinate with Pawel and either add the ENDPROC stuff > into your series, or drop those patches (but then you'll have to wait > to merge your series, otherwise the removal of the BSYM() macro for > C code will cause the realview/vexpress code to break). > > If you've not already done so, double-check that the target function is > either C or properly-annotated assembler in each case. However, so far > as I can see, all the cases are correct, except for realview and > vexpress. > > > After all these changes, BSYM will only be used in: > > boot/compressed/head.S > include/asm/entry-macro-multi.S > include/asm/unified.h > kernel/entry-armv.S > kernel/entry-common.S > kernel/head-nommu.S > kernel/head.S > kernel/sleep.S > lib/call_with_stack.S > > ... so providing it only for assembler ought to be OK. > So is that an ack for the last patch? Rob