linux-next regression on ARM926
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Thu Jul 21 09:48:04 EDT 2011
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:35:03AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> >> <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:02:01PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> >> Hi Dave,
> >> >>
> >> >> do you have any hints on how to resolve this build error in the -next
> >> >> tree:
> >> >>
> >> >> LD .tmp_vmlinux1
> >> >> arch/arm/mm/built-in.o:(.init.data+0xe0): undefined reference to
> >> >> `cpu_arm926_do_suspend'
> >> >> arch/arm/mm/built-in.o:(.init.data+0xe4): undefined reference to
> >> >> `cpu_arm926_do_resume'
> >> >> make[2]: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
> >> >> make[1]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> >> >> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/linus/linux-next'
> >> >> make: *** [build] Error 2
> >> >>
> >> >> This is while building the U300, I can't really tell if the error is on my
> >> >> (U300) side or in the recent patches to the proc_arm926 stuff?
> >> >> It seems all ARM926 SoCs were affected.
> >> >
> >> > Hmm.
> >> >
> >> > That happens because without CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, we do this:
> >> >
> >> > #define cpu_arm926_do_suspend 0
> >> > #define cpu_arm926_do_resume 0
> >> >
> >> > whereas the macro assembler does this:
> >> >
> >> > .word cpu_\name\()_do_suspend
> >> > .word cpu_\name\()_do_resume
> >> >
> >> > and this means that neither the preprocessor nor the assembler can tie
> >> > these two together.
> >> >
> >> > One solution would be to put an #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP around that in
> >> > mm/proc-macros.S to select .word 0 instead, and get rid of the #else
> >> > in the individual proc-*.S files - something like this (untested):
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
> >> > index b2f9bde..2bbcf05 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
> >> > @@ -421,9 +421,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_arm926_do_resume)
> >> > PMD_SECT_CACHEABLE | PMD_BIT4 | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
> >> > b cpu_resume_mmu
> >> > ENDPROC(cpu_arm926_do_resume)
> >> > -#else
> >> > -#define cpu_arm926_do_suspend 0
> >> > -#define cpu_arm926_do_resume 0
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > __CPUINIT
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
> >> > index 4ae9b44..307a4de 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
> >> > @@ -276,8 +276,13 @@ ENTRY(\name\()_processor_functions)
> >> >
> >> > .if \suspend
> >> > .word cpu_\name\()_suspend_size
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> > .word cpu_\name\()_do_suspend
> >> > .word cpu_\name\()_do_resume
> >> > +#else
> >> > + .word 0
> >> > + .word 0
> >> > +#endif
> >> > .else
> >> > .word 0
> >> > .word 0
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The intended meaning of "suspend=1" for define_processor_functions was
> >> "this cpu can do suspend" -- but this makes sense only if
> >> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is enabled. Where processors define their suspend
> >> functions unconditionally, that isn't a problem. But processors
> >> shouldn't be required (or even encouraged) to define those functions
> >> if the kernel doesn't have suspend support at all.
> >>
> >> So the above fix looks entirely sensible to me.
> >>
> >> I'm offline for the next day or two, but I trust Linus' test -- so if you like:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org>
> >
> > We need to fix up the other proc-*.S files to remove the #else clause too,
> > so the above patch was just supposed to be an example...
> >
>
> Hmmm, I'll take a closer look at the implications ... but
> unfortunately I'm not going to be able to do much until Thursday.
I've just applied such an extended patch covering the other proc-*.S
files - with your ack:
8<--------
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Fix build errors caused by adding generic macros
Commit 66a625a (ARM: mm: proc-macros: Add generic proc/cache/tlb struct
definition macros) introduced build errors when PM_SLEEP is not enabled.
The per-CPU do_suspend/do_resume functions are defined via the
preprocessor to constant 0. However, the macros which use these were
converted to assembly, resulting in undefined references to these
functions. Fix that by moving the ! ifdef section into proc-macros.S
and deleting it from all effected proc-*.S files.
Acked-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin at linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel at arm.linux.org.uk>
---
arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S | 3 ---
arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S | 3 ---
arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S | 5 +++++
arch/arm/mm/proc-sa1100.S | 3 ---
arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S | 3 ---
arch/arm/mm/proc-xsc3.S | 3 ---
arch/arm/mm/proc-xscale.S | 3 ---
7 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S
index 0dea376..92bd102 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S
@@ -406,9 +406,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_arm920_do_resume)
PMD_SECT_CACHEABLE | PMD_BIT4 | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
b cpu_resume_mmu
ENDPROC(cpu_arm920_do_resume)
-#else
-#define cpu_arm920_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_arm920_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
index b2f9bde..2bbcf05 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S
@@ -421,9 +421,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_arm926_do_resume)
PMD_SECT_CACHEABLE | PMD_BIT4 | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
b cpu_resume_mmu
ENDPROC(cpu_arm926_do_resume)
-#else
-#define cpu_arm926_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_arm926_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
index 4ae9b44..307a4de 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
@@ -276,8 +276,13 @@ ENTRY(\name\()_processor_functions)
.if \suspend
.word cpu_\name\()_suspend_size
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
.word cpu_\name\()_do_suspend
.word cpu_\name\()_do_resume
+#else
+ .word 0
+ .word 0
+#endif
.else
.word 0
.word 0
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-sa1100.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-sa1100.S
index c7e08ca..e715878 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-sa1100.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-sa1100.S
@@ -200,9 +200,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_sa1100_do_resume)
PMD_SECT_CACHEABLE | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
b cpu_resume_mmu
ENDPROC(cpu_sa1100_do_resume)
-#else
-#define cpu_sa1100_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_sa1100_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
index 54d1a63..a30e785 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
@@ -263,9 +263,6 @@ ENDPROC(cpu_v7_do_resume)
cpu_resume_l1_flags:
ALT_SMP(.long PMD_TYPE_SECT | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | PMD_FLAGS_SMP)
ALT_UP(.long PMD_TYPE_SECT | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | PMD_FLAGS_UP)
-#else
-#define cpu_v7_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_v7_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-xsc3.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-xsc3.S
index 1508f9b..64f1fc7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-xsc3.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-xsc3.S
@@ -445,9 +445,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_xsc3_do_resume)
ldr r3, =0x542e @ section flags
b cpu_resume_mmu
ENDPROC(cpu_xsc3_do_resume)
-#else
-#define cpu_xsc3_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_xsc3_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-xscale.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-xscale.S
index 76a8046..fbc06e5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-xscale.S
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-xscale.S
@@ -554,9 +554,6 @@ ENTRY(cpu_xscale_do_resume)
PMD_SECT_CACHEABLE | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
b cpu_resume_mmu
ENDPROC(cpu_xscale_do_resume)
-#else
-#define cpu_xscale_do_suspend 0
-#define cpu_xscale_do_resume 0
#endif
__CPUINIT
--
1.7.4.4
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list