[PATCH] powerpc: Fix missing declaration of [en/dis]able_kernel_vsx()

Christophe Leroy christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu
Tue Mar 9 20:57:44 AEDT 2021



Le 09/03/2021 à 10:16, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:52 AM Christophe Leroy
> <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> wrote:
>> Le 09/03/2021 à 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:39 AM Christophe Leroy
>>> <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu> wrote:
>>>> Add stub instances of enable_kernel_vsx() and disable_kernel_vsx()
>>>> when CONFIG_VSX is not set, to avoid following build failure.
>>>>
>>>>     CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.o
>>>> In file included from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dm_services_types.h:29,
>>>>                    from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dm_services.h:37,
>>>>                    from drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:27:
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c: In function 'dcn_bw_apply_registry_override':
>>>> ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/os_types.h:64:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'enable_kernel_vsx'; did you mean 'enable_kernel_fp'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>>      64 |   enable_kernel_vsx(); \
>>>>         |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:640:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DC_FP_START'
>>>>     640 |  DC_FP_START();
>>>>         |  ^~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/os_types.h:75:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'disable_kernel_vsx'; did you mean 'disable_kernel_fp'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>>      75 |   disable_kernel_vsx(); \
>>>>         |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.c:676:2: note: in expansion of macro 'DC_FP_END'
>>>>     676 |  DC_FP_END();
>>>>         |  ^~~~~~~~~
>>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>>> make[5]: *** [drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/calcs/dcn_calcs.o] Error 1
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 16a9dea110a6 ("amdgpu: Enable initial DCN support on POWER")
>>>> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/switch_to.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/switch_to.h
>>>> @@ -71,6 +71,16 @@ static inline void disable_kernel_vsx(void)
>>>>    {
>>>>           msr_check_and_clear(MSR_FP|MSR_VEC|MSR_VSX);
>>>>    }
>>>> +#else
>>>> +static inline void enable_kernel_vsx(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       BUILD_BUG();
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void disable_kernel_vsx(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       BUILD_BUG();
>>>> +}
>>>>    #endif
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how this is any better than the current situation: using
>>> BUILD_BUG() will still cause a build failure?
>>
>> No it won't cause a failure. In drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/os_types.h you have:
>>
>> #define DC_FP_START() { \
>>          if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP)) { \
>>                  preempt_disable(); \
>>                  enable_kernel_vsx(); \
>>          } else if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP)) { \
>>                  preempt_disable(); \
>>                  enable_kernel_altivec(); \
>>          } else if (!cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_FPU_UNAVAILABLE)) { \
>>                  preempt_disable(); \
>>                  enable_kernel_fp(); \
>>          } \
>>
>> When CONFIG_VSX is not selected, cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP) constant folds to 'false' so the
>> call to enable_kernel_vsx() is discarded and the build succeeds.
> 
> IC. So you might as well have an empty (dummy) function instead?
> 

But with an empty function, you take the risk that one day, someone calls it without checking that 
CONFIG_VSX is selected. Here if someone does that, build will fail.

Another solution is to declare a non static prototype of it, like __put_user_bad() for instance. In 
that case, the link will fail.

I prefer the BUILD_BUG() approach as I find it cleaner and more explicit, and also because it breaks 
the build at compile time, you don't have to wait link time to catch the error.

Christophe


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list