[Top] [All Lists]

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 16

To: Stephen Rothwell <>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 16
From: Guenter Roeck <>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:12:13 -0800
Cc:, LKML <>, Markos Chandras <>,, Ralf Baechle <>,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=n9qe+9Nv4L/5ZynE6OpR/bs56nCt7cixNvZ/VEFo01w=; b=lEZiUMi7Ceo+BkL7zGvwnMBmsn5x5H0V8W5np/Q+8oD+RVMrDToJIWCCOlF8XHNkleirhIxQBbqJYadNz7939VPNJfU1HdfnrlFQ5TaSJ5gnY5w6F6ykW+UcET3ldg+gqzvZOdml0k0zgW2huapWNV7PEuKVe4+lD1PxqlCcbus=;
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:41:44PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> Changes since 20120215:
> The net-net tree gained conflicts against the net and wireless trees.
> The fbdev tree gained a build failure for which I reverted a commit.
> I reverted a commit from the rr tree that causes build failures on some
> PowerPC builds.
> The oprofile tree lost its conflict.
> The staging tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
> next-20120215.
> The akpm tree gained a conflict against the wireless tree.  I also
> reverted a patch that caused boot failures on (at least) some PowerPC
> servers.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have created today's linux-next tree at
> git://
> (patches at ).  If you
> are tracking the linux-next tree using git, you should not use "git pull"
> to do so as that will try to merge the new linux-next release with the
> old one.  You should use "git fetch" as mentioned in the FAQ on the wiki
> (see below).
[ Trying again, this time hopefully replying to the correct e-mail.
  Sorry for the earlier noise. ]


Today's tree has a number of new mips related build errors.

Building mips:defconfig ... failed
Building mips:allmodconfig ... failed

Error log:
In file included from ./arch/mips/include/asm/sgiarcs.h:16:0,
                 from ./arch/mips/include/asm/sgialib.h:15,
                 from arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-mc.c:16:
./arch/mips/include/asm/fw/arc/types.h:18:15: error: expected identifier or '(' 
before '.' token
(more of those)

In file included from ./arch/mips/include/asm/sgialib.h:15:0,
                 from arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-mc.c:16:
./arch/mips/include/asm/sgiarcs.h:89:2: error: unknown type name '_PULONG'
./arch/mips/include/asm/sgiarcs.h:188:2: error: expected 
specifier-qualifier-list before '.' token
./arch/mips/include/asm/sgiarcs.h:252:2: error: unknown type name '_PLONG'
(more of those)

In file included from arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-mc.c:16:0:
./arch/mips/include/asm/sgialib.h:20:8: error: expected identifier or '(' 
before '.' token
(more or those)

Bisect points to commit 9119e8276d ("MIPS: asm: hazards: Add MIPSR6
definitions"). Looking into the patch, I wonder if the following is correct.

+#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_MIPSR2) || defined(CONFIG_CPU_MIPSR6) && 

This change appears to be missing a ( ) around the first two defined()
statements. Fixing that doesn't resolve the problem, though. Reverting
the patch doesn't fix the problem either, so something else must be wrong.

Building mips:cavium_octeon_defconfig ... failed

Error log:
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c: In function '__compute_return_epc_for_insn':
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:785:2: error: duplicate case value
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:753:2: error: previously used here
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:808:2: error: duplicate case value
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:769:2: error: previously used here
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:818:2: error: duplicate case value
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:761:2: error: previously used here
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:826:2: error: duplicate case value
arch/mips/kernel/branch.c:776:2: error: previously used here

Bisect points to commit 2f1da3620ff2 ("MIPS: Emulate the new MIPS R6 branch
compact (BC) instruction"). Looking into the code, the patch quite obviously
conflicts with cavium support.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>