Re: [PATCH v2] next: openrisc: Fix build

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Jonas Bonn wrote:

On 09/26/2014 06:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

openrisc:defconfig fails to build in next-20140926 with the following error.

In file included from arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c:31:0:
./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_get_arch':
./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h:77:9: error: 'EM_OPENRISC' undeclared

Fix by moving EM_OPENRISC to include/uapi/linux/elf-em.h.

Fixes: ce5d112827e5 ("ARCH: AUDIT: implement syscall_get_arch for all arches")
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
v2: Only move EM_OPENRISC.

Another possible solution for the problem would be to include asm/elf.h
in arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c. I had actually submitted a patch with
that fix back in August (maybe that is where I remembered the problem from).
Wonder what happened with that patch.

Would it make sense to drop EM_OR32 and replace it with EM_OPENRISC where
it is used ? binutils seems to suggest that EM_OPENRISC is the "official"
definition.

Do we even use EM_OR32?  Will the kernel build with the old toolchain if
we drop it?  If yes, drop it altogether... I don't recall the details as
to why we kept that define around at all.  And really, why bother
supporting the old toolchain at all... it's been at least two or three
years since EM_OPENRISC was added, hopefully people have moved on.  If
users want to upgrade their kernel, they can update the toolchain, too,
at this point.

EM_OPENRISC was added about ten years ago, and when the OR32 things in binutils
was removed in favour for OR1K earlier this year,
EM_OR1K was added as an alias to EM_OPENRISC.

With that said, I'm putting in a vote for removing EM_OR32 as well.

Stefan