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

[<Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com>]

On 22.11.2022 19:14, Clément Léger wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Le Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:13:40 +0100,
> Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> a écrit :
> 
>> 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.

Peter, what do you mean by "at least not always" here? Are you talking
about the OUTER_CACHE flag?

>>>
>>> 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? 

It will be in the next AT91 fixes PR.

Is there a particular
>> reason why this patch did get any feedback from you by now? It's ten

Something wrong with the email client on my side as I lost this patch. It
is back on my radar since Peter replied to it.


>> days old and Peter already sent a kind of reminder a few days ago.
> 
> Hi Thorsten,
> 
> Sorry for the lack of answer, I'm not sure about the best solution to
> tackle this problem. adding IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OUTER_CACHE) seems like a
> good way to avoid modifying the whole configuration. If ok for Claudiu,
> I think it is the best thing to do since it will work for all cases.
> 
> Clément
> 
>>
>> 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;
>>>  }
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Clément Léger,
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
> https://bootlin.com