lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: Fix compilation error while accessing MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK from .S files
From
Date
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
>
> .
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-19 12:13    [W:1.383 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site