Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next

[Måns Rullgård]

One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:30:55 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 02/08/2016 08:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, MÃns RullgÃrd <mans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>  
>> >>> Not very surprising either.  The number of people using Linux on avr32
>> >>> is probably approximately zero, and if anyone is, they're likely still
>> >>> running 2.6.32 or thereabouts.  
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once I tried up the topic about removal avr32 for good, but looks like
>> >> it wasn't a good time. Maybe now is better? It would really reduce a
>> >> burden on many drivers.
>> >>  
>> > I would agree, as long as the maintainers agree. We don't want to repeat
>> > the h8300 experience.  
>> 
>> So, are we going to agree that avr32 must be retired from next cycle?
>> 
>> P.S. I have no idea how to fix this "ârelocation truncated to fit:
>> R_AVR32_21Sâ", though I can test anything anyone propose.
>
> It means the AVR32 tool chain generated a 21bit signed code relocation
> then couldn't fix it up at link time. This probably simply means that
> something called through anon_inode_getfile() is now more than 1MB away
> from the call location, in which case you'll just need to debloat the
> kernel until it fits again or re-order the link to cure it (if I had to
> guess it'll be some kind of support function call and the compiler
> support tends to end up one end of the binary not in the middle).

It turned out to be a wrong asm operand constraint in cmpxchg().  Patch
already sent.

-- 
MÃns RullgÃrd