From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:18:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] drivers: cpuidle: cpuidle-arm64: include asm/proc-fns.h explicitly In-Reply-To: <20150227171604.GA12998@red-moon> References: <20150226182307.GD17949@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54F09EFA.4090906@linaro.org> <20150227171604.GA12998@red-moon> Message-ID: <54F0A703.6090808@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/27/2015 06:16 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 04:44:42PM +0000, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 02/26/2015 07:23 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 01:11:40PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:59:42PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>> [lp: rewrote commit log] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi >>>>> Tested-by: Mark Rutland >>>>> --- >>>>> v2 changes: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Will Deacon >>>> >>>> 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. >>>>> - Picked up >>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-February/325523.html >>>>> - Rebased against 4.0-rc1 and rewrote commit log >>>>> >>>>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c >>>>> index 39a2c62..c8bb6c5 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c >>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >>>>> #include >>>>> >>>>> #include >>>>> +#include >>>>> >>>>> #include "dt_idle_states.h" >>>>> >> >> >> -- >> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs >> >> Follow Linaro: Facebook | >> Twitter | >> Blog >> >> -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog