[PATCH] powerpc/boot: Remove duplicate typedefs from libfdt_env.h

[Mark Greer]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:53:09AM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 16/03/2018 à 22:54, Mark Greer a écrit :
> >When building a uImage or zImage using ppc6xx_defconfig and some other
> >defconfigs, the following error occurs:
> >
> >   BOOTCC  arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o
> >   In file included from arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.c:51:0:
> >   ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:10:13: error: redefinition of typedef 'uint32_t'
> >   ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:21:13: note: previous declaration of 'uint32_t' was here
> >   ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:11:13: error: redefinition of typedef 'uint64_t'
> >   ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:22:13: note: previous declaration of 'uint64_t' was here
> >   ../arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:210: recipe for target 'arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o' failed
> >   make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o] Error 1
> >
> >The problem is that commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL console
> >to epapr wrappers) adds typedefs for uint32_t and uint64_t to type.h but
> >doesn't remove the pre-existing (and now duplicate) typedefs from
> >libfdt_env.h.  Fix the error by removing the duplicat typedefs from
> >libfdt_env.h
> >
> >CC: David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> >CC: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall at gmail.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Mark Greer <mgreer at animalcreek.com>
> >---
> >Having said all of that, commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL
> >console to epapr wrappers) went into mainline back in 2016 so, AFAICT,
> >this has been broken since then.  That seems unlikely so I must be
> >missing something...  Any ideas what that is?
> 
> I just compiled uImage for ppc6xx_defconfig, and I don't get such error.
> I looked at what gcc -E outputs, u32 is defined twice but it doesn't seems
> to bother GCC.
> 
> What version of GCC do you use ?
> I tried with 5.4.0 and 4.6.3, both seems to work.
> 
> Christophe

Hi Christophe.

That's interesting.  I would expect an error regardless of version.

I used an old 4.5.1 gcc that I had laying around (from denx, iirc).
I'll find a newer one and try it.

Either way, it seems to me that we should remove the duplicate definitions.
Do you agree?

Thanks,

Mark
--