Re: [PATCH] arm64: Fix compilation error while accessing MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK from .S files

[John Garry]

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 <bhsharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 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.

Cheers,
John

> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> .