[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe:Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/fsl-85xx: fix compile error
From: Michael Ellerman <>
Date: 2020-03-17 19:22:13
To:"王文虎" <>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,Paul Mackerras <>,Allison Randal <>,Richard Fontana <>,Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,Thomas Gleixner <>,,,,,stable <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/fsl-85xx: fix compile error>王文虎 <> writes:
>> From: Michael Ellerman <>
>> Date: 2020-03-16 17:41:12
>> To:WANG Wenhu <>,Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,Paul Mackerras <>,WANG Wenhu <>,Allison Randal <>,Richard Fontana <>,Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,Thomas Gleixner <>,,
>> cc:,,stable <>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/fsl-85xx: fix compile error>WANG Wenhu <> writes:
>>>> Include "linux/of_address.h" to fix the compile error for
>>>> mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_probe() when compiling fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c.
>>>> CC arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.o
>>>> arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.c: In function ‘mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_probe’:
>>>> arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.c:90:11: error: implicit declaration of function ‘of_iomap’; did you mean ‘pci_iomap’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>> l2ctlr = of_iomap(dev->dev.of_node, 0);
>>>> ^~~~~~~~
>>>> pci_iomap
>>>> arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.c:90:9: error: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Werror=int-conversion]
>>>> l2ctlr = of_iomap(dev->dev.of_node, 0);
>>>> ^
>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>> scripts/ recipe for target 'arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.o' failed
>>>> make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.o] Error 1
>>>> Fixes: commit 6db92cc9d07d ("powerpc/85xx: add cache-sram support")
>>>The syntax is:
>>>Fixes: 6db92cc9d07d ("powerpc/85xx: add cache-sram support")
>>>> Cc: stable <>
>>>The commit above went into v2.6.37.
>>>So no one has noticed this bug since then, how? Or did something else
>>>change to expose the problem?
>> Actually a hard question to answer cause it also left me scratching for long.
>> However, I can not find right or definite answer.
>Oh, actually it's fairly straight forward, the code can't be built at
>all in upstream because CONFIG_FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM is not selectable or
>selected by anything.

Yeah, sure that is the reason, and I meant it was hard to figure out why
nobody had ever compiled the driver with FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM enabled
until me.
>You sent a patch previously to make it selectable, which Scott thought
>was a bad idea.
>So this whole file is dead code as far as I'm concerned, so patches for
>it definitely do not need to go to stable.
>If you want to add a user for it then please send a series doing that,
>and this commit can be the first.

For this, as you mentioned, it is dead and do not need to be applied to any stable.
And I recommand the patch as a unit itself cause our module which uses
it is still under developing, and the module itself would be taken as a
complete logical block. Also it would take some time.

Thanks, Wenhu

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-17 15:26    [W:0.067 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site