Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: Fix compilation error while accessing MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK from .S files | From | John Garry <> | Date | Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:12:32 +0000 |
| |
On 19/02/2018 11:02, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi John, > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:19:35AM +0000, John Garry wrote: >> On 19/02/2018 06:39, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>> Since commit e1a50de37860b3a93a9d643b09638db5aff47650 (arm64: cputype: >>> Silence Sparse warnings), compilation of arm64 architecture is broken >>> with the following error messages: >>> >>> AR arch/arm64/kernel/built-in.o >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S: Assembler messages: >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: junk at end of line, first >>> unrecognized character is `L' >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: unexpected characters following >>> instruction at operand 2 -- `movz x1,:abs_g1_s:0xff00ffffffUL' >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: unexpected characters following >>> instruction at operand 2 -- `movk x1,:abs_g0_nc:0xff00ffffffUL' >>> >>> This patch fixes the same by using the UL() macro correctly for >>> assigning the MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK macro value. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h >>> index eda8c5f629fc..350c76a1d15b 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h >>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >>> >>> #define MPIDR_UP_BITMASK (0x1 << 30) >>> #define MPIDR_MT_BITMASK (0x1 << 24) >>> -#define MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK 0xff00ffffffUL >>> +#define MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK UL(0xff00ffffff) >> >> Works for me. >> >> FYI, I am using (old) gcc-linaro-4.8-2015.06-x86_64_aarch64. > > Just to confirm: are you saying that this patch fixes the build for you, > or that mainline builds for you and the patch is not needed? >
Ah, what I said was ambigious.
I am saying that linux-next (20180219) is broken for me for the same reason and this patch fixes it.
I didn't spot the kernelci message Arnd mentioned, so I just wanted to mention the toolchain I used.
Cheers, John
> Cheers, > > Will > > . >
| |