Latest build results - errors/warnings - lots of them

[Dave Martin]

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:46:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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?

My bad -- Nico asked me to send you the patch, but I neglected to add
his ack.
 
> ... 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.

...and this was a plain screwup up my part.  v3.9* could not possibly
contain the relevant patches, but somehow I convinced myself I had test-
applied the patch on 3.9-rc7, instead of a local tree based on that.

I've sent you a patch based on devel-stable which should apply.

Apologies for the churn.

Cheers
---Dave