Quoting Sebastian Capella (2014-02-28 10:17:31)

Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux (2014-02-28 02:20:18)

...

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 06:19:49PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

...

On 02/27/14 17:47, Russ Dill wrote:

...

On 02/27/2014 04:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

...

On 02/27/14 15:57, Sebastian Capella wrote:

...

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h index 8756e4b..1079ea8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static inline void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x) */ #define __pa(x) __virt_to_phys((unsigned long)(x)) #define __va(x) ((void *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x))) +#define __pa_symbol(x) __pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))

Just curious, is there a reason for the RELOC_HIDE() here? Or __pa_symbol() for that matter? It looks like only x86 uses this on the __nosave_{begin,end} symbol. Maybe it's copy-pasta?

From my understanding this needs to stick around so long as gcc 3.x is supported (did it get dropped yet?) on ARM Linux since it doesn't support -fno-strict-overflow.

I don't think it's been dropped yet but I wonder if anyone has tried recent kernels with such a compiler?

Would the usage of &__pv_table_begin in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c also need the same treatment?

We've never had to play these kinds of games on ARM irrespective of compiler version.

I am using gcc 4.6.3. I can try removing it but I suspect it will just work without it. Let me see if I can get an older compiler and try both ways.

Hi,

I've been struggling a bit to test 3.x compilers on this.

I'm running an armv7 board, but the 3.x compilers I'm trying don't appear to suport armv7.

Anyone have any suggestions? Is this a worthwhile effort?

Thanks!

Sebastian