| Message ID | 20121128060553.GA18166@quad.lixom.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Olof / Kukjin, On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> Olof Johansson wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote: >> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote: >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke >> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too >> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440 >> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use >> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases. >> > >>> >> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was: >> > >>> Division by zero in kernel. >> > >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] >> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) >> > >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] >> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28) >> > >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] >> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) >> > >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] >> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) >> > >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from >> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) >> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from >> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) >> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] >> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38) >> > >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] >> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) >> > >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] >> > (0x40008078) >> > >>> >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Thanks Doug. >> > >> >> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in >> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you. >> > >> >> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want, >> > > >> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> > > >> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my >> > local >> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this. >> > >> > Ok, applied. Thanks all. >> > >> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of >> non-DT. > > Ick, thanks for catching that. Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files. >> >> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for >> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()... >> >> 8<--------------------------------------- >> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4 >> >> This fixes following in case of non-DT: >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io': >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function >> 'of_get_flat_dt_root' >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function >> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible' >> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1 >> >> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> --- >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> index b919f5f..2110091 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void) >> >> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size) >> { >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF >> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root(); >> >> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */ >> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) >> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, >> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc)); >> else >> +#endif >> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc)); > > I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile > code and can be hard to follow. Agree. > There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the > exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply > patches without trying to build. :( In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b: ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support". Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with: #include <linux/of_platform.h> #include <linux/of_fdt.h> #include <linux/serial_core.h> #include <linux/io.h> #include <linux/memblock.h> #include <linux/of_fdt.h> > > I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK? No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I have, but see below for an issue. > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = { > }, > }; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with: make exynos_defconfig echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build. > static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = { > { > .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID, > @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = { > .type = MT_DEVICE, > }, > }; > +#endif > > static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = { > { > @@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void) > > void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size) > { > + struct map_desc *iodesc = exynos_iodesc; > + int iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc); > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root(); > > /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */ > - if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) > - iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc)); > - else > - iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc)); > + if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) { > + iodesc = exynos5440_iodesc; > + iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc); > + } > +#endif > + > + iotable_init(iodesc, iodesc_sz); > > if (mach_desc) > iotable_init(mach_desc, size); > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c > index 2a75624..f1326be 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > */ > > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > +#include <linux/of_fdt.h> > #include <linux/serial_core.h> > > #include <asm/mach/arch.h> >
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > Olof / Kukjin, > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> Olof Johansson wrote: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote: >>> > > On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke >>> > >>> support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too >>> > >>> early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440 >>> > >>> failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use >>> > >>> of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was: >>> > >>> Division by zero in kernel. >>> > >>> [<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] >>> > >>> (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) >>> > >>> [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] >>> > >>> (__div0+0x20/0x28) >>> > >>> [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] >>> (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) >>> > >>> [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] >>> > >>> (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) >>> > >>> [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from >>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) >>> > >>> [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from >>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) >>> > >>> [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] >>> > >>> (time_init+0x28/0x38) >>> > >>> [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] >>> > >>> (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) >>> > >>> [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] >>> > (0x40008078) >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks Doug. >>> > >> >>> > >> Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in >>> > >> arm-soc, if that's OK with you. >>> > >> >>> > > Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want, >>> > > >>> > > Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>> > > >>> > > Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my >>> > local >>> > > :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this. >>> > >>> > Ok, applied. Thanks all. >>> > >>> Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of >>> non-DT. >> >> Ick, thanks for catching that. > > Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying > exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files. > >>> >>> Following can resolve it or we should create null function for >>> of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()... >>> >>> 8<--------------------------------------- >>> From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>> Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4 >>> >>> This fixes following in case of non-DT: >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io': >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function >>> 'of_get_flat_dt_root' >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function >>> 'of_flat_dt_is_compatible' >>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> >>> --- >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >>> index b919f5f..2110091 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >>> @@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void) >>> >>> void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF >>> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root(); >>> >>> /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */ >>> if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) >>> iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, >>> ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc)); >>> else >>> +#endif >>> iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc)); >> >> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile >> code and can be hard to follow. > > Agree. > >> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the >> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply >> patches without trying to build. :( > > In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at > 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in > the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b: > ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support". > > Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with: > > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > #include <linux/of_fdt.h> > #include <linux/serial_core.h> > #include <linux/io.h> > #include <linux/memblock.h> > #include <linux/of_fdt.h> Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order. We'll just have to fix it up later, if we don't add of_fdt.h in the exynos5440 branch, the code will not be bisectable. >> I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK? > > No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I > have, but see below for an issue. > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c >> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = { >> }, >> }; >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 > > Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef > used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with: > > make exynos_defconfig > echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config > > In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build. Yep, the above needs to be: #if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5) I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above changed). -Olof
Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > wrote: > > Olof / Kukjin, > > [...] > >> > >> I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's > fragile > >> code and can be hard to follow. > > > > Agree. Definitely, same here ;-) > >> There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the > >> exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just > apply > >> patches without trying to build. :( > > > > In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at > > 659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in > > the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b: > > ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support". > > > > Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with: > > > > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > > #include <linux/of_fdt.h> > > #include <linux/serial_core.h> > > #include <linux/io.h> > > #include <linux/memblock.h> > > #include <linux/of_fdt.h> > > Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order. Yeah. > We'll just have to fix it up later, Sure, I will after release 3.8-rc1. [...] > > I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above changed). > Thanks for your fix. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c index 796e0c9..77e7c5b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos_iodesc[] __initdata = { }, }; +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = { { .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID, @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5440_iodesc[] __initdata = { .type = MT_DEVICE, }, }; +#endif static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = { { @@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void) void __init exynos_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size) { + struct map_desc *iodesc = exynos_iodesc; + int iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc); +#ifdef CONFIG_OF unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root(); /* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */ - if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) - iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc)); - else - iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc)); + if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "samsung,exynos5440")) { + iodesc = exynos5440_iodesc; + iodesc_sz = ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc); + } +#endif + + iotable_init(iodesc, iodesc_sz); if (mach_desc) iotable_init(mach_desc, size); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c index 2a75624..f1326be 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ */ #include <linux/of_platform.h> +#include <linux/of_fdt.h> #include <linux/serial_core.h> #include <asm/mach/arch.h>