Re: FW: next build fails

Re: FW: next build fails

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1869 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:44:54 +0200 Sundar R IYER <sundar.iyer@stericsson.com> wrote:
>
> I am getting this build failure for our u8500_defconfig. I think some
> patch hasn't got completely merged. I patched it up at my end, 
> but would like to know if this is valid.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> commit 3ee465868d599f83d4851f9b86727071c55fd726
> Author: Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@stericsson.com>
> Date:   Wed Sep 15 12:27:10 2010 +0530
> 
>     ARM: fix build failure for legacy PMD_FLAGS
> 
>     Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@stericsson.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S index 820f6ba..f3cc9f6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ __v7_ca9mp_proc_info:
>         .long   PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
>                 PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
>                 PMD_SECT_AP_READ | \
> -               PMD_FLAGS
> +               PMD_FLAGS_UP
>         .long   PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
>                 PMD_SECT_XN | \
>                 PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
> 

This is due to a mismerge (in linux-next) between commit
dc966984f44f16b8bb6b0644e501c7c2163ead69 ("ARM: Allow SMP kernels to boot
on UP systems") from the arm tree (which renamed PMD_FLAGS to
PMD_FLAGS_UP) and commit b7bc5d9c6556e3ca37176784036380f91b53432c ("arm:
mm: add proc info for ARM11MPCore/Cortex-A9 from ARM") from the msm tree
(which added a new use of PMD_FLAGS).

I will add the above patch as a merge fixup to my tree until the msm tree
gets merged into the arm tree (or vice versa or they both are merged into
Linus' tree).

Thanks for the heads up.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: FW: next build fails

[Daniel Walker]

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:44 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> This is due to a mismerge (in linux-next) between commit
> dc966984f44f16b8bb6b0644e501c7c2163ead69 ("ARM: Allow SMP kernels to boot
> on UP systems") from the arm tree (which renamed PMD_FLAGS to
> PMD_FLAGS_UP) and commit b7bc5d9c6556e3ca37176784036380f91b53432c ("arm:
> mm: add proc info for ARM11MPCore/Cortex-A9 from ARM") from the msm tree
> (which added a new use of PMD_FLAGS).
> 
> I will add the above patch as a merge fixup to my tree until the msm tree
> gets merged into the arm tree (or vice versa or they both are merged into
> Linus' tree).

__v7_ca9mp_proc_info should just duplicate __v7_proc_info (the one below
it) ..

Daniel

Re: FW: next build fails

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:00:07 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>
> __v7_ca9mp_proc_info should just duplicate __v7_proc_info (the one below
> it) ..

Do you mean this:

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:48:25 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: fix build failure for legacy PMD_FLAGS

[Updated with advice from Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>: sfr]

Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@stericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S |   10 ++++++++--
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
index 820f6ba..fc8828b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
@@ -334,10 +334,16 @@ cpu_elf_name:
 __v7_ca9mp_proc_info:
 	.long	0x410fc090		@ Required ID value
 	.long	0xff0ffff0		@ Mask for ID
-	.long   PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
+	ALT_SMP(.long \
+		PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
 		PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
 		PMD_SECT_AP_READ | \
-		PMD_FLAGS
+		PMD_FLAGS_SMP)
+	ALT_UP(.long \
+		PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
+		PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
+		PMD_SECT_AP_READ | \
+		PMD_FLAGS_UP)
 	.long   PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
 		PMD_SECT_XN | \
 		PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
-- 
1.7.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Re: FW: next build fails

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 07:52 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> index 820f6ba..fc8828b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> @@ -334,10 +334,16 @@ cpu_elf_name:
>  __v7_ca9mp_proc_info:
>  	.long	0x410fc090		@ Required ID value
>  	.long	0xff0ffff0		@ Mask for ID
> -	.long   PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
> +	ALT_SMP(.long \
> +		PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
>  		PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
>  		PMD_SECT_AP_READ | \
> -		PMD_FLAGS
> +		PMD_FLAGS_SMP)
> +	ALT_UP(.long \
> +		PMD_TYPE_SECT | \
> +		PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | \
> +		PMD_SECT_AP_READ | \
> +		PMD_FLAGS_UP)

Yeah, exactly .. This is what I did to update my patch .. Do you want to
include this, or should I update my version and my tree.. Ultimately my
version has to go into Russell's tree..

Daniel

Re: FW: next build fails

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:58:57 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, exactly .. This is what I did to update my patch .. Do you want to
> include this, or should I update my version and my tree.. Ultimately my
> version has to go into Russell's tree..

Well, you can't really update that in your tree until after your tree is
merged with Russell's, right (since ALT_UP etc are not defined in your
tree)?  In that case, I need to do the fix when I merge your tree into
linux-next (and so with Russell's tree).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: FW: next build fails

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 08:04 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:58:57 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, exactly .. This is what I did to update my patch .. Do you want to
> > include this, or should I update my version and my tree.. Ultimately my
> > version has to go into Russell's tree..
> 
> Well, you can't really update that in your tree until after your tree is
> merged with Russell's, right (since ALT_UP etc are not defined in your
> tree)?  In that case, I need to do the fix when I merge your tree into
> linux-next (and so with Russell's tree).

Right, I see what your saying .. Ok, thanks.

Daniel

Re: FW: next build fails

[Russell King]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 03:08:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 08:04 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:58:57 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, exactly .. This is what I did to update my patch .. Do you want to
> > > include this, or should I update my version and my tree.. Ultimately my
> > > version has to go into Russell's tree..
> > 
> > Well, you can't really update that in your tree until after your tree is
> > merged with Russell's, right (since ALT_UP etc are not defined in your
> > tree)?  In that case, I need to do the fix when I merge your tree into
> > linux-next (and so with Russell's tree).
> 
> Right, I see what your saying .. Ok, thanks.

There is another way to handle this - we shouldn't be tinkering with
the aux control register on non-ARM cores (as we don't know what the
bits on such cores do) we could view this as a bug fix, and put it
into -rc.

I'd prefer to do that - so could you send the original patch you posted
to lakml to the patch system please?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: FW: next build fails

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 11:35 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 03:08:55PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 08:04 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:58:57 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, exactly .. This is what I did to update my patch .. Do you want to
> > > > include this, or should I update my version and my tree.. Ultimately my
> > > > version has to go into Russell's tree..
> > > 
> > > Well, you can't really update that in your tree until after your tree is
> > > merged with Russell's, right (since ALT_UP etc are not defined in your
> > > tree)?  In that case, I need to do the fix when I merge your tree into
> > > linux-next (and so with Russell's tree).
> > 
> > Right, I see what your saying .. Ok, thanks.
> 
> There is another way to handle this - we shouldn't be tinkering with
> the aux control register on non-ARM cores (as we don't know what the
> bits on such cores do) we could view this as a bug fix, and put it
> into -rc.

Yeah, it does seem to fit that category ..

> I'd prefer to do that - so could you send the original patch you posted
> to lakml to the patch system please?

Ok, I submitted it to your patch system (I'm assuming that's what you
mean by "patch system above").

http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6398/1

Daniel