Latest build results - errors/warnings - lots of them

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:34:30AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:18:42PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Dave Martin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:12:12AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 01:04:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 30 April 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > > > Latest nightly build of 3.9+my for-next+arm-soc's for-next results in a
> > > > > > > great load of new warnings and errors.  arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S,
> > > > > > > arch/arm/common/mcpm_platsmp.c, arch/arm/common/vlock.S are the biggest
> > > > > > > source of errors.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >  
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:39: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r9,r0,#0,#8'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:40: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r10,r0,#8,#8'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:100: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:115: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:127: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:131: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:138: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:152: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:161: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S:175: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:62: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:72: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:72: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:89: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:95: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:95: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:102: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dmb'
> > > > > > >arch/arm/common/vlock.S:105: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `dsb'
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Right, the problem here is that the code was never tested with an ARMv6+ARMv7 config.
> > > > > > We can either fix it up by adding
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	.arch	armv7-a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > in the assembly files, or by doing the same in the Makefile:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > AFLAGS_vlock.S += -march=armv7-a
> > > > > > AFLAGS_mcpm_head.S += -march=armv7-a
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmmm, this code was tested with ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, but it looks like
> > > > > no v6 boards were configured in when testing that...
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Assuming people are OK with the Makefile route, here's a patch for that,
> > > > > build-tested with a v6+v7 ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM config.
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't the .arch armv7-a route a bit cleaner?  That would have been my 
> > > > choice, although I don't feel strongly about it.
> > > 
> > > I don't feel strongly either.  We already have the CFLAGS_DISABLE stuff,
> > > so it didn't feel that unnatural to add this in the Makefile; but .arch
> > > would work equally well.
> > > 
> > > If somebody wants to change it, it's not a problem for me, but I didn't
> > > want to create extra disruption by proposing a different patch...
> > 
> > Fair enough.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico at linaro.org>
> 
> I see Dave Martin has sent a patch for this without your ack.  Was that
> a mistake?

... and the patch in the patch system doesn't apply anyway because its
against some other tree.  I've no idea what it's against, it's not as
the version on the patch advertises (v3.9-rc7) and not even the build
tree has the three additional FIQ lines at the end (so it's not in
arm-soc):

 obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_HOST_ITE8152)  += it8152.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_TIMER_SP804)  += timer-sp.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MCPM)             += mcpm_head.o mcpm_entry.o mcpm_platsmp.o vlock...
+AFLAGS_mcpm_head.o             := -march=armv7-a
+AFLAGS_vlock.o                 := -march=armv7-a
 CFLAGS_REMOVE_mcpm_entry.o     = -pg
 obj-$(CONFIG_FIQ_GLUE)         += fiq_glue.o fiq_glue_setup.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_FIQ_DEBUGGER)     += fiq_debugger.o

So, this is unapplyable.