Tree/Branch: next-20160222 Git describe: next-20160222 Commit: 1615dc93be Add linux-next specific files for 20160222
Build Time: 0 min 32 sec
Passed: 4 / 9 ( 44.44 %) Failed: 5 / 9 ( 55.56 %)
Errors: 9 Warnings: 9 Section Mismatches: 0
Failed defconfigs: arm64-allnoconfig arm64-allmodconfig arm-allmodconfig arm-allnoconfig arm64-defconfig
Errors:
arm64-allnoconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm64-allmodconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm-allmodconfig ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:168: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r7,r7,#28,#4' ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:176: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb' ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1846:31: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1851:35: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1855:8: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1856:28: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1857:21: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev')
arm64-defconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- defconfigs with issues (other than build errors): 2 warnings 0 mismatches : arm-multi_v5_defconfig 2 warnings 0 mismatches : arm-multi_v7_defconfig 9 warnings 0 mismatches : arm-allmodconfig 1 warnings 0 mismatches : arm-allnoconfig
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Errors summary: 9 4 drivers/gpio/Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected! 3 ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1857:21: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1856:28: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1855:8: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1851:35: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1846:31: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') 1 ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:176: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb' 1 ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:168: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r7,r7,#28,#4'
Warnings Summary: 9 6 <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp] 1 ../lib/lz4/lz4hc_compress.c:514:1: warning: the frame size of 1472 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] 1 ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:224:22: warning: passing argument 1 of '__div64_32' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 1 ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:220:25: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow] 1 ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:207:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast 1 ../drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:214:14: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] 1 ../drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:213:10: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] 1 ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1879:19: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 1 ../drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0020.c:651:1: warning: the frame size of 1032 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
=============================================================================== Detailed per-defconfig build reports below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm64-allnoconfig : FAIL, 1 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm64-allmodconfig : FAIL, 1 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm-multi_v5_defconfig : PASS, 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Warnings: <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp] <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm-multi_v7_defconfig : PASS, 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Warnings: <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp] <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x86_64-defconfig : PASS, 2 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: drivers/gpio/Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected! drivers/gpio/Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm-allmodconfig : FAIL, 7 errors, 9 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:168: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r7,r7,#28,#4' ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:176: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb' ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1846:31: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1851:35: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1855:8: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1856:28: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1857:21: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev')
Warnings: <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp] ../lib/lz4/lz4hc_compress.c:514:1: warning: the frame size of 1472 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:207:28: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:220:25: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow] ../include/asm-generic/div64.h:224:22: warning: passing argument 1 of '__div64_32' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] ../drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0020.c:651:1: warning: the frame size of 1032 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] ../drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:213:10: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] ../drivers/ntb/test/ntb_perf.c:214:14: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1879:19: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm-allnoconfig : FAIL, 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Warnings: <stdin>:1310:2: warning: #warning syscall madvisev not implemented [-Wcpp]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x86_64-allnoconfig : PASS, 2 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: drivers/gpio/Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected! drivers/gpio/Kconfig:34:error: recursive dependency detected!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arm64-defconfig : FAIL, 1 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches
Errors: ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passed with no errors, warnings or mismatches:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
Today's -next fails to build on arm64 due to:
arm64-allnoconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm64-allmodconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm64-defconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
triggered by the merge of the kvm-arm tree with -next today, it looks like changes in that tree and arm64 aren't playing nicely with each other (bisect came down to the merge and visual inspection of the changes didn't immediately show anything else though the issue is obvious in the code).
On 22/02/16 10:08, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
Today's -next fails to build on arm64 due to:
arm64-allnoconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm64-allmodconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
arm64-defconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
triggered by the merge of the kvm-arm tree with -next today, it looks like changes in that tree and arm64 aren't playing nicely with each other (bisect came down to the merge and visual inspection of the changes didn't immediately show anything else though the issue is obvious in the code).
I'm about to push the following patch on top of the KVM tree:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 43688d9..31fe7d6 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -333,11 +333,6 @@ static inline void __cpu_init_hyp_mode(phys_addr_t boot_pgd_ptr, hyp_stack_ptr, vector_ptr); }
-static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) -{ - kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation); -} - static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm) {} @@ -349,4 +344,11 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+/* #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) */ + +static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) +{ + kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation); +} + #endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
Thanks,
M.
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
I'm about to push the following patch on top of the KVM tree:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 43688d9..31fe7d6 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -333,11 +333,6 @@ static inline void __cpu_init_hyp_mode(phys_addr_t boot_pgd_ptr, hyp_stack_ptr, vector_ptr); }
-static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) -{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
-}
static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm) {} @@ -349,4 +344,11 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+/* #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) */
+static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) +{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
+}
#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
Thanks, Brian
Thanks,
M.
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 22/02/16 11:52, Brian Starkey wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
I'm about to push the following patch on top of the KVM tree:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 43688d9..31fe7d6 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -333,11 +333,6 @@ static inline void __cpu_init_hyp_mode(phys_addr_t boot_pgd_ptr, hyp_stack_ptr, vector_ptr); }
-static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) -{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
-}
static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void) {} static inline void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm) {} @@ -349,4 +344,11 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+/* #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) */
+static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) +{
- kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
+}
#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
This patch is intended as a merge indication so that when you do the merge with the arm64 tree, it conflicts and you can resolve it by going the right thing (merging the non-comment version of this line).
So yes, uncommenting it is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
M.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:00:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 22/02/16 11:52, Brian Starkey wrote:
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
This patch is intended as a merge indication so that when you do the merge with the arm64 tree, it conflicts and you can resolve it by going the right thing (merging the non-comment version of this line).
Right, now I understand "make the resolution 100% clear" - I guess 100% clear isn't clear enough for me :-(
I've not seen that used as notation before, thanks for explaining.
-Brian
So yes, uncommenting it is the right thing to do.
Thanks,
M.
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
On 22/02/16 12:07, Brian Starkey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:00:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 22/02/16 11:52, Brian Starkey wrote:
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
This patch is intended as a merge indication so that when you do the merge with the arm64 tree, it conflicts and you can resolve it by going the right thing (merging the non-comment version of this line).
Right, now I understand "make the resolution 100% clear" - I guess 100% clear isn't clear enough for me :-(
It is not meant to be clear to you, but to whoever is actually performing the merge:
$ git checkout arm64/for-next/core Note: checking out 'arm64/for-next/core'. $ git merge kvmarm-master/next Auto-merging virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v2-sr.c Auto-merging virt/kvm/arm/hyp/timer-sr.c Auto-merging arch/arm64/mm/fault.c Removing arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h Auto-merging arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/debug-sr.c Auto-merging arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S Auto-merging arch/arm64/kernel/image.h Auto-merging arch/arm64/kernel/head.S Auto-merging arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c Auto-merging arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c Auto-merging arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h Auto-merging arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h Auto-merging arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h Auto-merging arch/arm64/Kconfig Removing arch/arm/kvm/interrupts_head.S Auto-merging arch/arm/kvm/arm.c CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm/kvm/arm.c Auto-merging arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. maz@approximate:~/Work/arm-platforms$ git diff arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index e3d67ff,31fe7d6..0000000 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@@ -343,6 -344,11 +344,15 @@@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcp void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
++<<<<<<< HEAD +#define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) ++======= + /* #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__) */ + + static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void) + { + kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation); + } ++>>>>>>> kvmarm-master/next
#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
Thanks,
M.
Hi Marc,
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:44:15 +0000 Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com wrote:
On 22/02/16 12:07, Brian Starkey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:00:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 22/02/16 11:52, Brian Starkey wrote:
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
I applied this, but arm64 defconfig wouldn't build until I uncommented the '#define kvm_call_hyp(...' line.
Is that right?
This patch is intended as a merge indication so that when you do the merge with the arm64 tree, it conflicts and you can resolve it by going the right thing (merging the non-comment version of this line).
Right, now I understand "make the resolution 100% clear" - I guess 100% clear isn't clear enough for me :-(
It is not meant to be clear to you, but to whoever is actually performing the merge:
Excellent, thanks for that - hopefully I will get it right tomorrow.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 22/02/16 10:08, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
Today's -next fails to build on arm64 due to:
arm64-allnoconfig ../arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h:338:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'kvm_call_hyp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
I'm about to push the following patch on top of the KVM tree:
This will create a new conflict, but will make the resolution 100% clear.
That didn't work out unfortunately, the error is still there today.
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:28:42 +0900 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
That didn't work out unfortunately, the error is still there today.
Yeah, the patch didn't hit -next yesterday and I missed the opportunity to fix in manually. However, it should be fixed in today's linux-next (out in a few hours, hopefully).
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:48:59PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:28:42 +0900 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
That didn't work out unfortunately, the error is still there today.
Yeah, the patch didn't hit -next yesterday and I missed the opportunity to fix in manually. However, it should be fixed in today's linux-next (out in a few hours, hopefully).
Ah, good - it was just too late rather than not working.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
Today's -next fails to build an arm allmodconfig due to:
arm-allmodconfig ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1846:31: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1851:35: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1855:8: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1856:28: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev') ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c:1857:21: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'struct tc_to_netdev')
caused by commit 16e5cc647173a (net: rework setup_tc ndo op to consume general tc operand) in the net-next tree which looks to have a missing * in the rewrite of the function arguments for that driver.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
For the past few days -next has been failing to build an arm allmodconfig due to:
arm-allmodconfig ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:168: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r7,r7,#28,#4' ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:176: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb'
caused by e59941b9b3817c (ARM: 8527/1: virt: enable GICv3 system registers) in the ARM tree. My hot take is that it looks like CONFIG_ARM_GIC_V3 needs tighter dependencies so it can't get enabled for a v6 system but I could be wrong.
Mark,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:25:42PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:36:46AM +0000, Build bot for Mark Brown wrote:
For the past few days -next has been failing to build an arm allmodconfig due to:
arm-allmodconfig ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:168: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `ubfx r7,r7,#28,#4' ../arch/arm/kernel/hyp-stub.S:176: Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `isb'
caused by e59941b9b3817c (ARM: 8527/1: virt: enable GICv3 system registers) in the ARM tree. My hot take is that it looks like CONFIG_ARM_GIC_V3 needs tighter dependencies so it can't get enabled for a v6 system but I could be wrong.
Thanks for the report. A fix is already in Russell's patch system [1], and should be applied shortly.
Thanks, Jean-Philippe
[1] http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8534/1
kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org
-
Brian Starkey -
Build bot for Mark Brown -
Jean-Philippe Brucker -
Marc Zyngier -
Mark Brown
-
Stephen Rothwell