Hi all,
I have created today's linux-next tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git
(tar balls at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/sfr/linux-next/).
You can see which trees have been included by looking in the Next/Trees
file in the source. There are also quilt-import.log and merge.log files
in the Next directory. Between each merge, the tree was built with
a ppc64_defconfig for powerpc and an allmodconfig for x86_64.
There were a few merge conflicts (fairly trivial) and several build
failures that have been notified.
We are up to 49 trees, more are welcome (even if they are currently
empty). Thanks to those who have contributed, and to those who haven't,
please do.
In particular, I have very few of the architecture trees ....
Status of my local build tests is at
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next. If maintainers want to give
advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
more builds.
Thanks to Jan Dittmer for adding the linux-next tree to his build tests
at http://l4x.org/k/ and the guys at http://test.kernel.org/.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi,
The next-20080327 kernel build fails on powerpc with build error
ERROR: ".pnp_get_resource" [drivers/parport/parport_pc.ko] undefined!
ERROR: ".pnp_get_resource" [drivers/net/irda/smsc-ircc2.ko] undefined!
ERROR: ".pnp_get_resource" [drivers/net/irda/nsc-ircc.ko] undefined!
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kamalesh Babulal,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM, ISTL.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:33:57 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Status of my local build tests is at
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next. If maintainers want to give
> advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
> more builds.
AVR32 allnoconfig found a bug, which I've fixed. Could you try enabling
it again?
Haavard
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:42:24AM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:33:57 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Status of my local build tests is at
> > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next. If maintainers want to give
> > advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
> > more builds.
>
> AVR32 allnoconfig found a bug, which I've fixed. Could you try enabling
> it again?
BTW:
According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
> Haavard
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain. In any case, the patch
below should fix it. The commit being reverted is not in mainline, so
I'll probably just drop both of them next time I rebase.
FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here:
http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches
http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches
Haavard
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:23:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "avr32: Use better asm constraint in prefetch()"
This reverts commit e153fa1406b68460e0a8e498a2b83d50584cc40a.
This commit caused build breakage with some old 4.0.2-based gcc.
Signed-off-by: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
---
include/asm-avr32/processor.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-avr32/processor.h b/include/asm-avr32/processor.h
index 2abd3de..49a88f5 100644
--- a/include/asm-avr32/processor.h
+++ b/include/asm-avr32/processor.h
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ extern void show_stack_log_lvl(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long sp,
static inline void prefetch(const void *x)
{
const char *c = x;
- asm volatile("pref %0" : : "RKs16"(*c));
+ asm volatile("pref %0" : : "r"(c));
}
#define PREFETCH_STRIDE L1_CACHE_BYTES
--
1.5.4.3
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
>
> Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain.
The oldest compiler the kernel currently supports is gcc 3.2, and
whenever it's reasonably possible (noone expects you to backport avr32
support to gcc 3.2) the aim is to support all compilers back to gcc
3.2, or at least as far as possible.
> In any case, the patch
> below should fix it. The commit being reverted is not in mainline, so
> I'll probably just drop both of them next time I rebase.
Thanks.
> FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here:
>
> http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches
> http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches
Jan (who runs this page) Cc'ed.
> Haavard
cu
Adrian
BTW: What's the status of avr32 support in upstream binutils and gcc?
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:54:59 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
> > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> > > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
> >
> > Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain.
>
> The oldest compiler the kernel currently supports is gcc 3.2, and
> whenever it's reasonably possible (noone expects you to backport avr32
> support to gcc 3.2) the aim is to support all compilers back to gcc
> 3.2, or at least as far as possible.
We do have some gcc 3.x patches lying around somewhere, but I don't
think that's something we want to inflict on others ;-)
The first toolchain we ever released to the outside was based on gcc
4.0.2, so it is "ancient" in the sense that it has lots of
avr32-specific bugs that later toolchains don't have. I agree that we
should still try to support it as long as possible.
> BTW: What's the status of avr32 support in upstream binutils and gcc?
Still stuck in legal hell, I think.
Haavard
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
> > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> > > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
> >
> > Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain.
That's the toolchain from back when avr32 was first integrated in the
kernel. So it may be outdated, but I didn't read any statement on
the contrary. I tend to keep the toolchains stable as long as
possible.
> > FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here:
> >
> > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches
> > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches
So how can I get notified if I need a more recent toolchain?
IMHO every architecture should have a file somewhere (in
the kernel tree) where the required toolchain versions are
listed and required patches are linked. That would make it
such discussions unnecessary.
Jan
--
Jan Dittmer
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:54:23PM +0100, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
> > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> > > > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
> > >
> > > Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain.
>
> That's the toolchain from back when avr32 was first integrated in the
> kernel. So it may be outdated, but I didn't read any statement on
> the contrary. I tend to keep the toolchains stable as long as
> possible.
>
> > > FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here:
> > >
> > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches
> > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches
>
> So how can I get notified if I need a more recent toolchain?
> IMHO every architecture should have a file somewhere (in
> the kernel tree) where the required toolchain versions are
> listed and required patches are linked. That would make it
> such discussions unnecessary.
Even more important, all architectures should get all their
required patches into upstream binutils and gcc.
There might be some time at the beginning of a port until this state is
reached, but for the majority of our architectures plain upstream
binutils 2.18.50.0.5 and gcc 4.3.0 already give a successful kernel
build.
And I'm regularly poking arch maintainers to get their binutils and gcc
patches upstream.
Regarding "required toolchain versions" - I'm not even sure anyone
really knows what the minimum binutils version for x86 is...
> Jan
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:54:23 +0100
"Jan Dittmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200
> > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig:
> > > > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err
> > >
> > > Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain.
>
> That's the toolchain from back when avr32 was first integrated in the
> kernel. So it may be outdated, but I didn't read any statement on
> the contrary. I tend to keep the toolchains stable as long as
> possible.
Right...and like I said later in this thread, we should really try to
keep those toolchains working for as long as possible. So don't worry
about it.
> > > FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here:
> > >
> > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches
> > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches
>
> So how can I get notified if I need a more recent toolchain?
> IMHO every architecture should have a file somewhere (in
> the kernel tree) where the required toolchain versions are
> listed and required patches are linked. That would make it
> such discussions unnecessary.
Good question. The problem is that there's really no way to tell until
someone actually runs into a problem, and when that happens, we might
as well try to fix it in the kernel.
There's no avr32 toolchain list (maybe we should add one), but the
[email protected] list is probably a good bet if you want to
keep an eye on things.
Oh, and thanks a lot for doing these tests!
Haavard
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 06:33:57PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> We are up to 49 trees, more are welcome (even if they are currently
> empty).
Can you add my "linux drivers" tree at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/gregkh-04-ldp/
to the mix as well? It should come after my 3 other trees. It contains
new drivers that are being worked on by the linux driver project group.
The code there isn't the best, but it is actively being worked on to
clean up and get ready for merging, and should always build properly.
If not, I'd like to know about it, as it passes my build tests on i386
and x86-64.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Haavard,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:24 +0100 Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:33:57 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Status of my local build tests is at
> > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/linux-next. If maintainers want to give
> > advice about cross compilers/configs that work, we are always open to add
> > more builds.
>
> AVR32 allnoconfig found a bug, which I've fixed. Could you try enabling
> it again?
Done.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:45:05 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Can you add my "linux drivers" tree at:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/gregkh-04-ldp/
> to the mix as well? It should come after my 3 other trees. It contains
> new drivers that are being worked on by the linux driver project group.
Are these drivers targetted at 2.6.26? If so, I will add this at the end
(and drop it temporarily when it breaks). If not, then it should wait
until after 2.6.25 is out.
> The code there isn't the best, but it is actively being worked on to
> clean up and get ready for merging, and should always build properly.
> If not, I'd like to know about it, as it passes my build tests on i386
> and x86-64.
That is promising.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:53:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:45:05 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Can you add my "linux drivers" tree at:
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/gregkh-04-ldp/
> > to the mix as well? It should come after my 3 other trees. It contains
> > new drivers that are being worked on by the linux driver project group.
>
> Are these drivers targetted at 2.6.26? If so, I will add this at the end
> (and drop it temporarily when it breaks). If not, then it should wait
> until after 2.6.25 is out.
Some are targetted at .26, depending on how quickly the cleanup and
testing goes. Others for probably kernels beyond that.
I have no problem if you place it at the end, it will let me know about
api changes earlier.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:27:12 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some are targetted at .26, depending on how quickly the cleanup and
> testing goes. Others for probably kernels beyond that.
>
> I have no problem if you place it at the end, it will let me know about
> api changes earlier.
I have added the tree to the end starting today (assuming I get linux-next
built today). I have called it "ldp". If you want a different name,
just shout.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/