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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231114-arm-build-bug-v1-1-458745fe32a4@linaro.org>
 <b2354c21-3a1a-c446-fee0-db0c78d05c71@gmail.com> <CACRpkdYUzYxV+NY=mymXP59mt9msTUvSXM__f+4qRM+_xjX0Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYUzYxV+NY=mymXP59mt9msTUvSXM__f+4qRM+_xjX0Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:25:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CAPLW+4mT5Qpo+B7fSfiG1qRVr4cSvuWhArpu-3kbFtSukSV8_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: acenv: Permit compilation from within the kernel
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Sam Edwards <cfsworks@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Linus,

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 2:20=E2=80=AFPM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro=
.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 7:09=E2=80=AFPM Sam Edwards <cfsworks@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>
> > I am not an ACPI subsystem maintainer, but my understanding is that the
> > files in include/acpi/ are copied verbatim from ACPICA, so any change t=
o
> > those files will have to be sent to the ACPICA project and wouldn't be
> > accepted here.
> >
> > More likely, we'd want to do something about the circular-include
> > situation between linux/fw_table.h<->linux/acpi.h.
>
> I agree but I have no idea how to fix that really, should I just send
> a revert instead so the authors can get some time to figure it out?
>

Just want to confirm that linux-mainline and linux-next builds are
broken for my ARM64 board as well, because of the commit you
pin-pointed. I vote for reverting it and letting the author rework it
properly. On a side note: I'm surprised there are no bots or automatic
CI builds out there testing the kernel builds with baremetal
toolchains. Can't believe everyone's using Linux toolchain, the kernel
is supposed to be baremetal project.

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij