| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <561C8614.8080402@ti.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:48:28 +0530 From: Keerthy <a0393675@...com> To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> CC: Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux@....linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAP: Change all cpu_is_* occurences to soc_is_* On Monday 12 October 2015 10:59 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [151012 10:17]: >> * Keerthy <a0393675@...com> [150901 17:24]: >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:33 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>> * Keerthy <a0393675@...com> [150901 10:22]: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 09:29 AM, Keerthy wrote: >>>>>> Currently apart from dra7, omap5 and amx3 all the other SoCs >>>>>> are identified using cpu_is_* functions which is not right since >>>>>> they are all SoCs(System on Chips). Hence changing the SoC >>>>>> identification code to use soc_is instead of cpu_is and keeping >>>>>> defines for cpu_is where needed. This allows us to replace the >>>>>> rest of cpu_is usage along with other fixes as needed. >>>>> >>>>> Tony, >>>>> >>>>> A Gentle ping on this. >>>> >>>> Looks good to me for v4.4. I'll apply it after some testing >>>> after -rc1. >>> >>> Thanks Tony. >> >> Now with the fixes finally out of the way, applying into >> omap-for-v4.4/cleanup. > > Uhh actually not applying. This breaks builds quite a bit depending on > the .config options chosen: > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:767:6: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap24xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c:257:15: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap243x’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c:259:8: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap44xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > ... > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:389:7: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap34xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:767:6: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap24xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > ... > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:389:7: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap34xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:767:6: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap24xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > ... > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:767:6: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap24xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c:257:15: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap243x’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > arch/arm/mach-omap2/control.c:259:8: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap44xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > ... > arch/arm/mach-omap2/io.c:767:6: error: implicit declaration of function ‘cpu_is_omap24xx’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > Keerthy, can you please test this with just single SoC configurations > and run randconfig builds on this overnight. I will do that Tony. I tested omap2plus_defconfig and boot tested on multiple platforms. > > And then we obviously need to test to make sure that this does not > break booting on various platforms for multi SoC and single SoC > configurations. Okay. > > And then you can repost, please include what all was tested. Sure. > > Thanks, > > Tony > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists