On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:12:32AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 19/02/2018 11:02, Will Deacon wrote: > >Hi John, > > > >On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:19:35AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > >>On 19/02/2018 06:39, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > >>>Since commit e1a50de37860b3a93a9d643b09638db5aff47650 (arm64: cputype: > >>>Silence Sparse warnings), compilation of arm64 architecture is broken > >>>with the following error messages: > >>> > >>> AR arch/arm64/kernel/built-in.o > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S: Assembler messages: > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: found 'L', expected: ')' > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: junk at end of line, first > >>> unrecognized character is `L' > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: unexpected characters following > >>> instruction at operand 2 -- `movz x1,:abs_g1_s:0xff00ffffffUL' > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:677: Error: unexpected characters following > >>> instruction at operand 2 -- `movk x1,:abs_g0_nc:0xff00ffffffUL' > >>> > >>>This patch fixes the same by using the UL() macro correctly for > >>>assigning the MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK macro value. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <[email protected]> > >>>--- > >>>arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 +- > >>>1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > >>>b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > >>>index eda8c5f629fc..350c76a1d15b 100644 > >>>--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > >>>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > >>>@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > >>> > >>>#define MPIDR_UP_BITMASK (0x1 << 30) > >>>#define MPIDR_MT_BITMASK (0x1 << 24) > >>>-#define MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK 0xff00ffffffUL > >>>+#define MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK UL(0xff00ffffff) > >> > >>Works for me. > >> > >>FYI, I am using (old) gcc-linaro-4.8-2015.06-x86_64_aarch64. > > > >Just to confirm: are you saying that this patch fixes the build for you, > >or that mainline builds for you and the patch is not needed? > > > > Ah, what I said was ambigious. > > I am saying that linux-next (20180219) is broken for me for the same reason > and this patch fixes it. > > I didn't spot the kernelci message Arnd mentioned, so I just wanted to > mention the toolchain I used.
Thanks for the clarification; Catalin -- can you pick this up for -rc3 please? Will
