[PATCH v2] drivers: cpuidle: cpuidle-arm64: include asm/proc-fns.h explicitly

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 02/27/2015 06:16 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 04:44:42PM +0000, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 02/26/2015 07:23 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 01:11:40PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:59:42PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>>>> ARM64 CPUidle driver requires the cpu_do_idle function so that it can
>>>>> be used to enter the shallowest idle state, and it is declared in
>>>>> asm/proc-fns.h.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current ARM64 CPUidle driver does not include asm/proc-fns.h
>>>>> explicitly and it has so far relied on implicit inclusion from other
>>>>> header files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owing to some header dependencies reshuffling this currently triggers
>>>>> build failures when CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y:
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c: In function "arm64_enter_idle_state"
>>>>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c:42:3: error: implicit declaration of
>>>>> function "cpu_do_idle" [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>>>      cpu_do_idle();
>>>>>      ^
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch adds the explicit inclusion of the asm/proc-fns.h header file
>>>>> to fix the build breakage and stop relying on implicit asm/proc-fns.h
>>>>> inclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa at codeaurora.org>
>>>>> [lp: rewrote commit log]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com>
>>>>> Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2 changes:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Catalin will pick this up for -rc2, I suspect.
>>>
>>> I can merge this as long as Daniel or Rafael are fine with it.
>>
>> I am wondering if asm/proc-fns.h shouldn't be directly included in
>> asm/cpuidle.h, otherwise each time cpuidle.h is included somewhere we
>> have to include proc-fns.h also.
>>
>> It is not a problem for ARM64 because there is not a big number of
>> cpuidle drivers but for ARM32 it is not the case. I have a patchset
>> which put proc-fns.h inclusion directly in asm/cpuidle.h and cleanup the
>> drivers. For the sake of consistency between ARM/ARM64 may be it would
>> make sense to include in the cpuidle.h directly, no ?
>
> This patch is a build fix, and I'd rather get it in asap. We can move
> the inclusion and merge the resulting clean-up patch in your series later.
> I will put together the patch now, if Catalin has the pull request ready
> to be sent I do not see the point in delaying it though.

I was just suggesting to put the proc-fns.h inclusion in cpuidle.h 
directly. That fixes the build also.

>>>>> - Picked up
>>>>>     http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-February/325523.html
>>>>> - Rebased against 4.0-rc1 and rewrote commit log
>>>>>
>>>>>    drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c | 1 +
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
>>>>> index 39a2c62..c8bb6c5 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
>>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>>>>    #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>    #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
>>>>> +#include <asm/proc-fns.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>    #include "dt_idle_states.h"
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>    <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>>
>> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
>> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
>> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>>
>>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog