| Message ID | 20130430114229.GA2439@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tuesday 30 April 2013, Dave Martin wrote: > From 193f254689beaa1612d29bcc5ba004a933b37d95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:25:04 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mcpm: Add explicit AFLAGS to support v6/v7 > multiplatform kernels > > The full mcpm layer is not likely to be relevant to v6 based platforms, > so a multiplatform kernel won't use that code if booted on v6 hardware. > > This patch modifies the AFLAGS for affected mcpm .S files to specify > armv7-a explicitly for that code. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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... Cheers ---Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@linaro.org> > > Cheers > ---Dave > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@linaro.org> I see Dave Martin has sent a patch for this without your ack. Was that a mistake? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/common/Makefile b/arch/arm/common/Makefile index 546a932..d65a0a8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/common/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm/common/Makefile @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SHARP_SCOOP) += scoop.o obj-$(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.o +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