Re: [PATCH V4 22/23] platform/surface: Disable for RISC-V

[Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>]

On 4/5/23 13:11, Sunil V L wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:33:00AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 4/4/23 20:20, Sunil V L wrote:
>>> With CONFIG_ACPI enabled for RISC-V, this driver gets enabled
>>> in allmodconfig build. However, RISC-V doesn't support sub-word
>>> atomics which is used by this driver. Due to this, the build fails
>>> with below error.
>>>
>>> In function ‘ssh_seq_next’,
>>>       inlined from ‘ssam_request_write_data’ at drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:1483:8:
>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:399:45: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_335’ declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG failed
>>>     399 |         _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
>>>         |                                             ^
>>> ./include/linux/compiler.h:78:45: note: in definition of macro ‘unlikely’
>>>      78 | # define unlikely(x)    __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
>>>         |                                             ^
>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:387:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__compiletime_assert’
>>>     387 |         __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
>>>         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:399:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘_compiletime_assert’
>>>     399 |         _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
>>>         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> ./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
>>>      39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
>>>         |                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> ./include/linux/build_bug.h:59:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
>>>      59 | #define BUILD_BUG() BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "BUILD_BUG failed")
>>>         |                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> ./arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:335:17: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG’
>>>     335 |                 BUILD_BUG();                                            \
>>>         |                 ^~~~~~~~~
>>> ./arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:344:30: note: in expansion of macro ‘__cmpxchg’
>>>     344 |         (__typeof__(*(ptr))) __cmpxchg((ptr),                           \
>>>         |                              ^~~~~~~~~
>>> ./include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h:1916:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘arch_cmpxchg’
>>>    1916 |         arch_cmpxchg(__ai_ptr, __VA_ARGS__); \
>>>         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:61:32: note: in expansion of macro ‘cmpxchg’
>>>      61 |         while (unlikely((ret = cmpxchg(&c->value, old, new)) != old)) {
>>>         |                                ^~~~~~~
>>>
>>> So, disable this driver for RISC-V even when ACPI is enabled for now.
>>
>> CONFIG_SURFACE_PLATFORMS should be enabled for ARM64 || X86 || COMPILE_TEST only,
>> so I guess the issue only happens when compiling with the latter enabled?
>>
>> I'm not aware of any current plans of MS to release RISC-V-based Surface
>> devices, so you could maybe also just explicitly disable CONFIG_SURFACE_PLATFORMS.
>> In any case, I don't see any issues with disabling the whole platform/surface
>> or only individual drivers for RISC-V, so for either solution:
>>
>> Acked-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>>
> Hi Maximilian,
> 
> Thanks!. Yes, COMPILE_TEST gets enabled for allmodconfig builds. Since
> the whole intention of COMPILE_TEST appears to be able to compile-test
> drivers on a platform than they are supposed to be used, I think it is
> better not to skip whole set of drivers but only that which can not build.
> So, I prefer to keep this change as is.

Hi Sunil,

What I wanted to say with my previous mail: I'm fairly confident that
platform/surface drivers will not be actively used on RISC-V hardware any
time soon (not sure if that came over in this way). But whatever you/others
prefer, I'm happy with either.

Best regards,
Max

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv