Re: [PATCH v2 -next] powerpc: kernel/time.c - cleanup warnings

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc: He Ying <heying24@huawei.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	kernelfans@gmail.com, frederic@kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next] powerpc: kernel/time.c - cleanup warnings
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:19:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWfFtJOQQf0b-2QJRd1EMLSW7rDsjNYzjjZhg6=JNZ0AA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YFppJkpZRHMJFay0@piout.net>

Hi Alexandre,

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:18 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> On 23/03/2021 05:12:57-0400, He Ying wrote:
> > We found these warnings in arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c as follows:
> > warning: symbol 'decrementer_max' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > warning: symbol 'rtc_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > warning: symbol 'dtl_consumer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Declare 'decrementer_max' and 'rtc_lock' in powerpc asm/time.h.
> > Rename 'rtc_lock' in drviers/rtc/rtc-vr41xx.c to 'vr41xx_rtc_lock' to
> > avoid the conflict with the variable in powerpc asm/time.h.
> > Move 'dtl_consumer' definition behind "include <asm/dtl.h>" because it
> > is declared there.
> >
> > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: He Ying <heying24@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Instead of including linux/mc146818rtc.h in powerpc kernel/time.c, declare
> >   rtc_lock in powerpc asm/time.h.
> >
>
> V1 was actually the correct thing to do. rtc_lock is there exactly
> because chrp and maple are using mc146818 compatible RTCs. This is then
> useful because then drivers/char/nvram.c is enabled. The proper fix
> would be to scrap all of that and use rtc-cmos for those platforms as
> this drives the RTC properly and exposes the NVRAM for the mc146818.
>
> Or at least, if there are no users for the char/nvram driver on those
> two platforms, remove the spinlock and stop enabling CONFIG_NVRAM or
> more likely rename the symbol as it seems to be abused by both chrp and
> powermac.

IIRC, on CHRP LongTrail, NVRAM was inherited from CHRP's Mac ancestry,
not from CHRP's PC ancestry, and thus NVRAM is not the one in the
mc146818-compatible RTC.

http://users.telenet.be/geertu/Linux/PPC/DeviceTree.html confirms that,
showing that nvram is a different device node than rtc.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds