On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

On 02/27/2015 06:16 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 04:44:42PM +0000, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

On 02/26/2015 07:23 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 01:11:40PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:59:42PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

ARM64 CPUidle driver requires the cpu_do_idle function so that it can
be used to enter the shallowest idle state, and it is declared in
asm/proc-fns.h.

The current ARM64 CPUidle driver does not include asm/proc-fns.h
explicitly and it has so far relied on implicit inclusion from other
header files.

Owing to some header dependencies reshuffling this currently triggers
build failures when CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y:

drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c: In function "arm64_enter_idle_state"
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c:42:3: error: implicit declaration of
function "cpu_do_idle" [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
    cpu_do_idle();
    ^

This patch adds the explicit inclusion of the asm/proc-fns.h header file
to fix the build breakage and stop relying on implicit asm/proc-fns.h
inclusion.

Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <redacted>
[lp: rewrote commit log]
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <redacted>
Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
---
v2 changes:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <redacted>

Catalin will pick this up for -rc2, I suspect.

I can merge this as long as Daniel or Rafael are fine with it.

I am wondering if asm/proc-fns.h shouldn't be directly included in
asm/cpuidle.h, otherwise each time cpuidle.h is included somewhere we
have to include proc-fns.h also.

It is not a problem for ARM64 because there is not a big number of
cpuidle drivers but for ARM32 it is not the case. I have a patchset
which put proc-fns.h inclusion directly in asm/cpuidle.h and cleanup the
drivers. For the sake of consistency between ARM/ARM64 may be it would
make sense to include in the cpuidle.h directly, no ?

This patch is a build fix, and I'd rather get it in asap. We can move
the inclusion and merge the resulting clean-up patch in your series later.
I will put together the patch now, if Catalin has the pull request ready
to be sent I do not see the point in delaying it though.

I was just suggesting to put the proc-fns.h inclusion in cpuidle.h directly.
That fixes the build also.

This would do as well, especially since you plan to clean up arch/arm as
well (or just move the cpu_do_idle() prototype in asm/cpuidle.h; we
moved cpu_suspend() there already).

-- 
Catalin