[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878shpa2yq.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 21:37:33 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc: WANG Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wenhu.pku@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/sysdev: fix compile errors
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> writes:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> > > Include linux/io.h into fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c to fix the
>> > > implicit-declaration compile errors when building Cache-Sram.
>> > >
>> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c: In function
>> > > ‘instantiate_cache_sram’:
>> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c:97:26: error: implicit declaration
>> > > of function ‘ioremap_coherent’; did you mean ‘bitmap_complement’?
>> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> > > cache_sram->base_virt = ioremap_coherent(cache_sram->base_phys,
>> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > > bitmap_complement
>> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c:97:24: error: assignment makes
>> > > pointer from integer without a cast [-Werror=int-conversion]
>> > > cache_sram->base_virt = ioremap_coherent(cache_sram->base_phys,
>> > > ^
>> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_85xx_cache_sram.c:123:2: error: implicit declaration
>> > > of function ‘iounmap’; did you mean ‘roundup’?
>> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> > > iounmap(cache_sram->base_virt);
>> > > ^~~~~~~
>> > > roundup
>> > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> > >
>> > > Fixed: commit 6db92cc9d07d ("powerpc/85xx: add cache-sram support")
>> > > Signed-off-by: WANG Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>>
>> As this doesn't seem to have been picked up for linux-next yet, I am
>> picking it up now.
>
> Only now I've noticed that this is actually a dead code o_O as this file
> can't be built by any combination of config options. So I am dropping the
> patch again, but why do we keep it in the tree in the first place?
Yeah, sigh.
As Christophe pointed out, it has been dead code for a long time but
there is a series in flight that's trying to make it usable.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists