linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 17 (mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.c)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:54:15 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 17 (mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.c)

Hi Ulf,

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 14:28, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:28 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 20/04/20 12:12 pm, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > + Masahiro Yamada, Adrian Hunter
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 16:48, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 4/16/20 9:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Changes since 20200416:
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> on i386:
> > > >>
> > > >>   CC      drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.o
> > > >> In file included from ../include/linux/build_bug.h:5:0,
> > > >>                  from ../include/linux/bitfield.h:10,
> > > >>                  from ../drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.c:9:
> > > >> ../drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.c: In function ‘sdhci_at91_set_clks_presets’:
> > > >> ../include/linux/compiler.h:394:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_63’ declared with attribute error: FIELD_PREP: value too large for the field
> > > >>   _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > >>                                       ^
> > > >> ../include/linux/compiler.h:375:4: note: in definition of macro ‘__compiletime_assert’
> > > >>     prefix ## suffix();    \
> > > >>     ^~~~~~
> > > >> ../include/linux/compiler.h:394:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘_compiletime_assert’
> > > >>   _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > >>   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> ../include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
> > > >>  #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
> > > >>                                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> ../include/linux/bitfield.h:49:3: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
> > > >>    BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?  \
> > > >>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> ../include/linux/bitfield.h:94:3: note: in expansion of macro ‘__BF_FIELD_CHECK’
> > > >>    __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > > >>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> ../drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-at91.c:185:11: note: in expansion of macro ‘FIELD_PREP’
> > > >>   caps1 |= FIELD_PREP(SDHCI_CLOCK_MUL_MASK, clk_mul);
> > >
> > > My guess is the compiler has decided clk_mul is constant (probably (unsigned
> > > int)-1) because there is no CONFIG_COMMON_CLK i.e. clk_get_rate() is 0
> > >
> > > So maybe add to config MMC_SDHCI_OF_AT91
> > >
> > >         depends on COMMON_CLK
> > >
> > > >>            ^~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > I checked include/linux/clk.h
> >
> >
> > clk_get_rate() is guarded by CONFIG_HAVE_CLK.
> >
> > I think
> >
> >     depends on HAVE_CLK
>
> Do you have the possibility of sending a patch, asap. Otherwise I can
> help to do it!?


Sorry.

I can send a patch if it is preferred.

Do you need a separate patch, or
do you want to squash the fix-up
to keep the bisectability?


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada