Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: fix build for SAMA5D3 w/o L2 cache

From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: "Clément Léger" <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
	"Claudiu Beznea" <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: fix build for SAMA5D3 w/o L2 cache
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:13:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <075d8c0f-5448-73aa-bd3f-0d4e1216e87f@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b7f8dacc-5e1f-0eb2-188e-3ad9a9f7613d@axentia.se>

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.

On 12.11.22 16:40, Peter Rosin wrote:
> The L2 cache is present on the newer SAMA5D2 and SAMA5D4 families, but
> apparently not for the older SAMA5D3. At least not always.
> 
> Solves a build-time regression with the following symptom:
> 
> sama5.c:(.init.text+0x48): undefined reference to `outer_cache'
> 
> Fixes: 3b5a7ca7d252 ("ARM: at91: setup outer cache .write_sec() callback if needed")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>

Clément Léger and Claudiu Beznea: what's up here? Is there a particular
reason why this patch did get any feedback from you by now? It's ten
days old and Peter already sent a kind of reminder a few days ago.

Reminder, ideally this regression should be fixed by now. For details
see the section "Prioritize work on fixing regressions"  in
Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst (
https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html )

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.

> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I'm not sure this is the correct solution? Maybe SAMA5D3 should bring
> in CONFIG_OUTER_CACHE unconditionally instead? But that seems like a
> bigger change, and not just a tweak of the regressing commit...
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5.c
> index 67ed68fbe3a5..bf2b5c6a18c6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5.c
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static void sama5_l2c310_write_sec(unsigned long val, unsigned reg)
>  static void __init sama5_secure_cache_init(void)
>  {
>  	sam_secure_init();
> -	if (sam_linux_is_optee_available())
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OUTER_CACHE) && sam_linux_is_optee_available())
>  		outer_cache.write_sec = sama5_l2c310_write_sec;
>  }
>  