From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Date: 2012-11-27 19:54:29
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c | 5 ++++-
arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
@@ -335,8 +336,10 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+unsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();+/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */-if(of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440"))+if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));elseiotable_init(exynos_iodesc,ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2012-11-27 22:12:21
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
-Olof
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2012-11-27 22:27:13
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from [<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from [<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local :-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on
this.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2012-11-27 22:37:40
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
(dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
(__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
(__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
(time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
(start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>] (0x40008078)
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson<dianders@chromium.org>
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my local
:-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2012-11-28 05:23:13
Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
(dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
(__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
quoted
quoted
quoted
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
(__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
(time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
(start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local
quoted
:-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
Ok, applied. Thanks all.
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---------------------------------------
From: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
---
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+#ifdef CONFIG_OFunsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));
else
+#endif
iotable_init(exynos_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));
if (mach_desc)
8<---------------------------------------
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2012-11-28 06:05:57
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
(dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
(__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
(__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
(time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
(start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local
quoted
:-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
Ok, applied. Thanks all.
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Ick, thanks for catching that.
quoted hunk
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---------------------------------------
From: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
---
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+#ifdef CONFIG_OFunsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
code and can be hard to follow.
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
patches without trying to build. :(
I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
@@ -347,13 +349,19 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+structmap_desc*iodesc=exynos_iodesc;+intiodesc_sz=ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc);+#ifdef CONFIG_OFunsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */-if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))-iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc));-else-iotable_init(exynos_iodesc,ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_iodesc));+if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440")){+iodesc=exynos5440_iodesc;+iodesc_sz=ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5440_iodesc);+}+#endif++iotable_init(iodesc,iodesc_sz);if(mach_desc)iotable_init(mach_desc,size);
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Date: 2012-11-28 16:16:42
Olof / Kukjin,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
quoted
Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
(dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
(__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
(__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
(time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
(start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local
quoted
:-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
Ok, applied. Thanks all.
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Ick, thanks for catching that.
Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
quoted
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---------------------------------------
From: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
---
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+#ifdef CONFIG_OFunsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
code and can be hard to follow.
Agree.
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
patches without trying to build. :(
In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/memblock.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I
have, but see below for an issue.
Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef
used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with:
make exynos_defconfig
echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config
In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build.
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2012-11-28 17:44:19
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:
Olof / Kukjin,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:23:09PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
quoted
Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 11/28/12 07:11, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Doug Anderson[off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
The recent commit "ARM: EXYNOS: add support for EXYNOS5440 SoC" broke
support for exynos5250 because of_machine_is_compatible() was used too
early in the boot process. It also probably meant that the exynos5440
failed to use the proper iotable. Switch to use
of_flat_dt_is_compatible() in both of these cases.
The failure I was seeing in exynos5250 because of this was:
Division by zero in kernel.
[<80015ed4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<8045c7a4>]
(dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<8045c7a4>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80012990>]
(__div0+0x20/0x28)
[<80012990>] (__div0+0x20/0x28) from [<8021ab04>]
(Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18)
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
[<8021ab04>] (Ldiv0_64+0x8/0x18) from [<80068560>]
(__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134)
[<80068560>] (__clocksource_updatefreq_scale+0x54/0x134) from
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54)
[<8006865c>] (__clocksource_register_scale+0x1c/0x54) from
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8)
[<80612a18>] (exynos_timer_init+0x100/0x1e8) from [<8060d184>]
(time_init+0x28/0x38)
[<8060d184>] (time_init+0x28/0x38) from [<8060a754>]
(start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8)
[<8060a754>] (start_kernel+0x1e0/0x3c8) from [<40008078>]
Thanks Doug.
Kukjin, I'll apply this directly on top of the previous branch in
arm-soc, if that's OK with you.
Sure, go ahead with my ack if you want,
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Note, actually there was a fix which uses soc_is_exynos5440() in my
local
quoted
:-) I'm not sure which one is better at this moment, but I'm OK on this.
Ok, applied. Thanks all.
Olof, just note, happens build error with exynos4_defconfig because of
non-DT.
Ick, thanks for catching that.
Sorry for this! I will try to be more diligent about trying
exynos4_defconfig before submitting future patches to these files.
quoted
quoted
Following can resolve it or we should create null function for
of_get_flat_dt_root() and of_flat_dt_is_compatible()...
8<---------------------------------------
From: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Subject: ARM: EXYNOS: fix a build error with non-DT for exynos4
This fixes following in case of non-DT:
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c: In function 'exynos_init_io':
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:339: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_get_flat_dt_root'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c:342: error: implicit declaration of function
'of_flat_dt_is_compatible'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.o] Error 1
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
---
@@ -336,12 +336,14 @@ void __init exynos_init_late(void)void__initexynos_init_io(structmap_desc*mach_desc,intsize){+#ifdef CONFIG_OFunsignedlongroot=of_get_flat_dt_root();/* initialize the io descriptors we need for initialization */if(of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root,"samsung,exynos5440"))iotable_init(exynos5440_iodesc,
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's fragile
code and can be hard to follow.
Agree.
quoted
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just apply
patches without trying to build. :(
In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/memblock.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order.
We'll just have to fix it up later, if we don't add of_fdt.h in the
exynos5440 branch, the code will not be bisectable.
quoted
I'll squash this into Doug's original patch, if that's OK?
No objection to squashing a fix and your CL is better than what I
have, but see below for an issue.
Are you sure you want this #ifdef? If so it should match the ifdef
used below. With your patch applied I can get a compile error with:
make exynos_defconfig
echo '# CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5 is not set' >> .config
In other words your code will fail if someone wants a FDT-enabled exynos4 build.
Yep, the above needs to be:
#if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5)
I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above changed).
-Olof
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2012-11-30 11:08:42
Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Doug Anderson [off-list ref]
wrote:
quoted
Olof / Kukjin,
[...]
quoted
quoted
I really don't like splitting an if/else with an ifdef like this, it's
fragile
quoted
quoted
code and can be hard to follow.
Agree.
Definitely, same here ;-)
quoted
quoted
There's also a second build error with exynos_defconfig in the
exynos5-dt.c board file due to a missing include. Teaches me to just
apply
quoted
quoted
patches without trying to build. :(
In the tree I was testing against (the arm-soc/for-next branch at
659b19ca3a77e2ac32fe84d95242653c75dd07c7) I see the include file in
the exynos5-dt.c file already. In my tree it was added by "2eae613b:
ARM: EXYNOS: Add MFC device tree support".
Your patch applies cleanly on mine but I end up with:
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/memblock.h>
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
Sigh, this is because people add includes out of alphabetical order.
Yeah.
We'll just have to fix it up later,
Sure, I will after release 3.8-rc1.
[...]
I've pushed out the branch with the patch applied (with the above
changed).
Thanks for your fix.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.