Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 18:50:14 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm-perf tree
Message-ID: <20231010175013.GA10036@willie-the-truck>
References: <20231010095601.1443903c@canb.auug.org.au>
 <98ffbcf6-a646-ac2-5785-f78644f7cbe@os.amperecomputing.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98ffbcf6-a646-ac2-5785-f78644f7cbe@os.amperecomputing.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:45:18PM -0700, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After merging the arm-perf tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/ampere_cspmu.c: In function 'ampere_cspmu_set_ev_filter':
> > drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/ampere_cspmu.c:164:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >  164 |         writel(threshold, cspmu->base0 + PMAUXR0);
> >      |         ^~~~~~
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >  290a9c0e55f8 ("perf: arm_cspmu: ampere_cspmu: Add support for Ampere SoC PMU")
> > 
> > I have used the arm-perf tree from next-20231009 for today.
> 
> Thanks for catching the bug! It doesn't seem to happen on arm64 build but I
> can reproduce it on x86_64 build indeed.
> 
> 
> Will, it seems that "#include <linux/io.h>" is missing from ampere_cspmu.c.
> After that also x86_64 build goes through. How would you like to get the bug
> fixed? Shall I submit a new version of the patch, and you would replace the
> old patch with the new one or is it better to
> create a completely new patch that only adds the missing include line?

If it's just a missing include, I can chuck a patch on top to fix it myself.
I'll double-check it resolves the problem and then update the branch.

Thanks!

Will