linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

Hi all,

After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
failed like this:

arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h: Assembler messages:
arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h:10: Error: Unknown opcode: `extern'

Caused by commit 3a242f58a5f4 ("sparc idle: rename pm_idle to
sparc_idle") from the acpi tree.

I have applied this patch for today:

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:30:19 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: protect variable declarations against the assembler

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
index 34baa35..622cfa5 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
 #endif
 
 #define nop() 		__asm__ __volatile__ ("nop")
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
 extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
+#endif
 
 #endif
-- 
1.8.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Bjorn Helgaas]

[+cc Rafael, since you mentioned the ACPI tree]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h: Assembler messages:
> arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h:10: Error: Unknown opcode: `extern'
>
> Caused by commit 3a242f58a5f4 ("sparc idle: rename pm_idle to
> sparc_idle") from the acpi tree.
>
> I have applied this patch for today:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:30:19 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: protect variable declarations against the assembler
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> index 34baa35..622cfa5 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
>  #endif
>
>  #define nop()          __asm__ __volatile__ ("nop")
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
> +#endif
>
>  #endif
> --
> 1.8.1
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Len Brown]

On 02/11/2013 02:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h: Assembler messages:
> arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h:10: Error: Unknown opcode: `extern'
> 
> Caused by commit 3a242f58a5f4 ("sparc idle: rename pm_idle to
> sparc_idle") from the acpi tree.
> 
> I have applied this patch for today:
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:30:19 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: protect variable declarations against the assembler
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> index 34baa35..622cfa5 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
>  #endif
>  
>  #define nop() 		__asm__ __volatile__ ("nop")
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
> +#endif
>  
>  #endif
> 

Thank you Stephen!

The last time I compiled a sparc kernel was in 1993:-)

I've added your fix and Dave's Ack to this patch,
and updated it in my next branch.

Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Sam Ravnborg]

> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> >  arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> > index 34baa35..622cfa5 100644
> > --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> > +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
> > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  #define nop() 		__asm__ __volatile__ ("nop")
> > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >  extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
> > +#endif
> >  
> >  #endif
> > 
> 
> Thank you Stephen!
> 
> The last time I compiled a sparc kernel was in 1993:-)
> 
> I've added your fix and Dave's Ack to this patch,
> and updated it in my next branch.

Hi Len.

Can you please move the definition of sparc_idle to processor_32.h
It is sparc32 specific - and then we do not need the __ASSEMBLY__ guards
as the sparc32 variant are not used from assembler.

Do you btw. have any hints how I can convert to the cpu_idle thing you hinted?

	Sam

Should SPARC use cpuidle? (was: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related))

[Len Brown]

On 02/12/2013 12:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> index 34baa35..622cfa5 100644
>>> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor.h
>>> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
>>>  #endif
>>>  
>>>  #define nop() 		__asm__ __volatile__ ("nop")
>>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>  extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
>>> +#endif
>>>  
>>>  #endif
>>>
>>
>> Thank you Stephen!
>>
>> The last time I compiled a sparc kernel was in 1993:-)
>>
>> I've added your fix and Dave's Ack to this patch,
>> and updated it in my next branch.
> 
> Hi Len.
> 
> Can you please move the definition of sparc_idle to processor_32.h
> It is sparc32 specific - and then we do not need the __ASSEMBLY__ guards
> as the sparc32 variant are not used from assembler.

sure, let me know if attached works.

> Do you btw. have any hints how I can convert to the cpu_idle thing you hinted?

If you have exactly 1 idle state, then cpuidle isn't that interesting,
except, perhaps the standard residency counters.  If you have multiple
states to choose from, cpuidle becomes more valuable.

There are lots of cpuidle users now, including x86's intel_idle,
processor_idle, and the entire ARM tree.

In my tree right now is a patch to convert APM to cpuidle --
though as nobody has tested it yet I can't guarantee it is correct.

patches/issues related to idle should to to linux-pm@vger.kernel.org (on cc)

thanks,
-Len

Re: Should SPARC use cpuidle?

[Len Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 337 bytes --]


>> Can you please move the definition of sparc_idle to processor_32.h
>> It is sparc32 specific - and then we do not need the __ASSEMBLY__ guards
>> as the sparc32 variant are not used from assembler.
> 
> sure, let me know if attached works.

ugh, not accustomed to sending patches via thunderbird.
hopefully this attachment works...


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-sparc-idle-rename-pm_idle-to-sparc_idle.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4055 bytes --]

>From 358ca5d7e02c4559ad3fbf8135421e4a3753e979 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 23:27:26 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: rename pm_idle to sparc_idle
Reply-To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center

(pm_idle)() is being removed from linux/pm.h
because Linux does not have such a cross-architecture concept.

sparc uses an idle function pointer in its architecture
specific code.  So we re-name sparc use of pm_idle to sparc_idle.

Maybe some day, SPARC will cut over to cpuidle...

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
 arch/sparc/include/asm/processor_32.h | 1 +
 arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c               | 3 ++-
 arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pmc.c          | 5 +++--
 arch/sparc/kernel/pmc.c               | 3 ++-
 arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c        | 7 +++----
 5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor_32.h
index c1e0191..2c7baa4 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor_32.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/processor_32.h
@@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ extern unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *);
 extern struct task_struct *last_task_used_math;
 
 #define cpu_relax()	barrier()
+extern void (*sparc_idle)(void);
 
 #endif
 
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
index 348fa1a..eefda32 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
 #include <asm/uaccess.h>
 #include <asm/auxio.h>
 #include <asm/apc.h>
+#include <asm/processor.h>
 
 /* Debugging
  * 
@@ -158,7 +159,7 @@ static int apc_probe(struct platform_device *op)
 
 	/* Assign power management IDLE handler */
 	if (!apc_no_idle)
-		pm_idle = apc_swift_idle;	
+		sparc_idle = apc_swift_idle;
 
 	printk(KERN_INFO "%s: power management initialized%s\n", 
 	       APC_DEVNAME, apc_no_idle ? " (CPU idle disabled)" : "");
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pmc.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pmc.c
index 4e17432..708bca4 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pmc.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pmc.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 #include <asm/leon_amba.h>
 #include <asm/cpu_type.h>
 #include <asm/leon.h>
+#include <asm/processor.h>
 
 /* List of Systems that need fixup instructions around power-down instruction */
 unsigned int pmc_leon_fixup_ids[] = {
@@ -69,9 +70,9 @@ static int __init leon_pmc_install(void)
 	if (sparc_cpu_model == sparc_leon) {
 		/* Assign power management IDLE handler */
 		if (pmc_leon_need_fixup())
-			pm_idle = pmc_leon_idle_fixup;
+			sparc_idle = pmc_leon_idle_fixup;
 		else
-			pm_idle = pmc_leon_idle;
+			sparc_idle = pmc_leon_idle;
 
 		printk(KERN_INFO "leon: power management initialized\n");
 	}
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/pmc.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/pmc.c
index dcbb62f..8b7297f 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/pmc.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/pmc.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 #include <asm/oplib.h>
 #include <asm/uaccess.h>
 #include <asm/auxio.h>
+#include <asm/processor.h>
 
 /* Debug
  *
@@ -63,7 +64,7 @@ static int pmc_probe(struct platform_device *op)
 
 #ifndef PMC_NO_IDLE
 	/* Assign power management IDLE handler */
-	pm_idle = pmc_swift_idle;
+	sparc_idle = pmc_swift_idle;
 #endif
 
 	printk(KERN_INFO "%s: power management initialized\n", PMC_DEVNAME);
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c
index be8e862..62eede1 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/process_32.c
@@ -43,8 +43,7 @@
  * Power management idle function 
  * Set in pm platform drivers (apc.c and pmc.c)
  */
-void (*pm_idle)(void);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_idle);
+void (*sparc_idle)(void);
 
 /* 
  * Power-off handler instantiation for pm.h compliance
@@ -75,8 +74,8 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
 	/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
 	for (;;) {
 		while (!need_resched()) {
-			if (pm_idle)
-				(*pm_idle)();
+			if (sparc_idle)
+				(*sparc_idle)();
 			else
 				cpu_relax();
 		}
-- 
1.8.1.3.535.ga923c31

Re: Should SPARC use cpuidle?

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> 
> >> Can you please move the definition of sparc_idle to processor_32.h
> >> It is sparc32 specific - and then we do not need the __ASSEMBLY__ guards
> >> as the sparc32 variant are not used from assembler.
> > 
> > sure, let me know if attached works.
> 
> ugh, not accustomed to sending patches via thunderbird.
> hopefully this attachment works...
> 

> >From 358ca5d7e02c4559ad3fbf8135421e4a3753e979 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 23:27:26 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: rename pm_idle to sparc_idle
> Reply-To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> (pm_idle)() is being removed from linux/pm.h
> because Linux does not have such a cross-architecture concept.
> 
> sparc uses an idle function pointer in its architecture
> specific code.  So we re-name sparc use of pm_idle to sparc_idle.
> 
> Maybe some day, SPARC will cut over to cpuidle...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Build tested - OK.
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>

Re: Should SPARC use cpuidle? (was: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related))

[Sam Ravnborg]

> 
> > Do you btw. have any hints how I can convert to the cpu_idle thing you hinted?
> 
> If you have exactly 1 idle state, then cpuidle isn't that interesting,
> except, perhaps the standard residency counters.  If you have multiple
> states to choose from, cpuidle becomes more valuable.
> 
> There are lots of cpuidle users now, including x86's intel_idle,
> processor_idle, and the entire ARM tree.

I think LEON has only a single power-down state.
The APC stuff I know nothing about :-(

So for now I think I will let it be as it is then.

	Sam

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

Hi Len,

On Mon, 24 May 2010 02:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I've just now pushed fixes for those two build issues.

Thanks.

Can you pick up the gfp/slab.h updates patch I sent you the other day,
as well, please.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Len Brown]

Hi Stephen,

Sorry for the trouble.
I've just now pushed fixes for those two build issues.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (acpi tree related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

Hi Len,

After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig)
failed like this:

processor_driver.c:(.init.text+0x290b): undefined reference to `intel_idle_load_first'

Caused by commit 08ce7f9d5851216a4726ba9bc54a12a7d9bad392 ("intel_idle:
create a native cpuidle driver for select intel processors") from the acpi
tree.

I reverted that commit for today. (which revealed a typo in the commit
before that one (2828bdc92eeea6e9c79ffcb430f4b67e4ebd1559 "ACPI: allow a
native cpuidle driver to displace ACPI") so I reverted that as well.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]