Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix missing declaration of [en/dis]able_kernel_vsx()

Hi Christophe,

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:52 AM Christophe Leroy
[off-list ref] wrote:

Le 09/03/2021 à 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :

quoted

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:39 AM Christophe Leroy
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add stub instances of enable_kernel_vsx() and disable_kernel_vsx()
when CONFIG_VSX is not set, to avoid following build failure.

   CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.o
In file included from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dm_services_types.h:29,
                  from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dm_services.h:37,
                  from drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:27:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c: In function 'dcn_bw_apply_registry_override':
./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/os_types.h:64:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'enable_kernel_vsx'; did you mean 'enable_kernel_fp'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
    64 |   enable_kernel_vsx(); \
       |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:640:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DC_FP_START'
   640 |  DC_FP_START();
       |  ^~~~~~~~~~~
./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/os_types.h:75:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'disable_kernel_vsx'; did you mean 'disable_kernel_fp'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
    75 |   disable_kernel_vsx(); \
       |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:676:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DC_FP_END'
   676 |  DC_FP_END();
       |  ^~~~~~~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[5]: *** [drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.o] Error 1

Fixes: 16a9dea110a6 ("amdgpu: Enable initial DCN support on POWER")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <redacted>

Thanks for your patch!

quoted

--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/switch_to.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/switch_to.h

@@ -71,6 +71,16 @@ static inline void disable_kernel_vsx(void)
  {
         msr_check_and_clear(MSR_FP|MSR_VEC|MSR_VSX);
  }
+#else
+static inline void enable_kernel_vsx(void)
+{
+       BUILD_BUG();
+}
+
+static inline void disable_kernel_vsx(void)
+{
+       BUILD_BUG();
+}
  #endif

I'm wondering how this is any better than the current situation: using
BUILD_BUG() will still cause a build failure?

No it won't cause a failure. In drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/os_types.h you have:

#define DC_FP_START() { \
        if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP)) { \
                preempt_disable(); \
                enable_kernel_vsx(); \
        } else if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP)) { \
                preempt_disable(); \
                enable_kernel_altivec(); \
        } else if (!cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_FPU_UNAVAILABLE)) { \
                preempt_disable(); \
                enable_kernel_fp(); \
        } \

When CONFIG_VSX is not selected, cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP) constant folds to 'false' so the
call to enable_kernel_vsx() is discarded and the build succeeds.

IC. So you might as well have an empty (dummy) function instead?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds