From patchwork Tue Apr 23 03:49:50 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Masahiro Yamada X-Patchwork-Id: 1089047 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44p8nT0ZDzz9s71 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:58:37 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=socionext.com Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="qQonU7ZJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44p8nS6X8kzDqCg for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:58:36 +1000 (AEST) X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=softfail (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=socionext.com (client-ip=210.131.2.74; helo=conuserg-07.nifty.com; envelope-from=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=socionext.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="qQonU7ZJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from conuserg-07.nifty.com (conuserg-07.nifty.com [210.131.2.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44p8cs0tX7zDqLs for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:51:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (p14092-ipngnfx01kyoto.kyoto.ocn.ne.jp [153.142.97.92]) (authenticated) by conuserg-07.nifty.com with ESMTP id x3N3o2cA023044; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:50:04 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conuserg-07.nifty.com x3N3o2cA023044 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1555991405; bh=bSpCfUAcyt+UjPMgYyZQmseLNPkdMgHIhxbhwQzsBmI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qQonU7ZJ8JQuK/yYFMxbIUEgpGk8t0atMGb/Xg6wfixcHjJS4ZUo9nyW+pQqWbV8T OxvALrGC8d/ErgshgANG1OAY+TcpQpCqnaavYGTgwqrgaUitAzgyE/9JOFwv4BsBdG wbeykQA6/Q04egSC+2R80XMzpSETZsYTxdB0oHI0xSH/b0z6nhabFnafw6cY5n9tKs 0f2/DWceDLDknEENgje4LV91UluDtdJv9N5kvqx6b3GklMOHRjgjlpHvwKHOkoiQvj F7yiwswgn7WygwK4jBgoIws8Okj6DQ9vW0zIHi+Rcqbu1FlYnNlSg+X3RQo8mdEc/b gz8IOWt3SAfsQ== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [153.142.97.92] From: Masahiro Yamada To: Andrew Morton , linux-arch Subject: [RESEND PATCH v3 02/11] arm64: mark (__)cpus_have_const_cap as __always_inline Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:49:50 +0900 Message-Id: <20190423034959.13525-3-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190423034959.13525-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> References: <20190423034959.13525-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Mathieu Malaterre , x86@kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masahiro Yamada , Ingo Molnar , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" This prepares to move CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING from x86 to a common place. We need to eliminate potential issues beforehand. If it is enabled for arm64, the following errors are reported: In file included from ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:68, from : ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h: In function 'cpus_have_const_cap': ./include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:120:38: warning: asm operand 0 probably doesn't match constraints #define asm_volatile_goto(x...) do { asm goto(x); asm (""); } while (0) ^~~ ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:32:2: note: in expansion of macro 'asm_volatile_goto' asm_volatile_goto( ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:120:38: error: impossible constraint in 'asm' #define asm_volatile_goto(x...) do { asm goto(x); asm (""); } while (0) ^~~ ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:32:2: note: in expansion of macro 'asm_volatile_goto' asm_volatile_goto( ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada Tested-by: Mark Rutland --- Changes in v3: None Changes in v2: - split into a separate patch arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h index e505e1fbd2b9..77d1aa57323e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static inline bool cpu_have_feature(unsigned int num) } /* System capability check for constant caps */ -static inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int num) +static __always_inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int num) { if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS) return false; @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ static inline bool cpus_have_cap(unsigned int num) return test_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps); } -static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num) +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num) { if (static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready)) return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);