Subject: next build: 629 warnings 1 failures (next/next-20140723)

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:50:37 +0100

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:27:30AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Olof's autobuilder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >         arm64.defconfig:
> > arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:298: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 2 -- `mrs x0,S3_4_C12_C9_5'
> > arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:301: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_4_C12_C9_5,x0'
> > arch/arm64/kernel/head.S:303: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_4_C12_C11_0,xzr'
> > arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c:1119:3: error: too many arguments to function 'audit_syscall_entry'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:21: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_1,x0'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:162: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 2 -- `mrs x19,S3_0_C12_C12_0'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:186: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_1,x19'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:220: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_1,x19'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1110: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C11_5,x27'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1530: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 2 -- `mrs x0,S3_0_C12_C12_5'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1540: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_5,x0'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1548: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 2 -- `mrs x0,S3_0_C12_C12_5'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1564: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C4_C6_0,x0'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1576: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_4,x0'
> > /tmp/ccq7ZztI.s:1592: Error: unknown or missing system register name at operand 1 -- `msr S3_0_C12_C12_7,x0'
> 
> 
> I'm building with a vanilla gcc 4.8.2 / binutils 2.23.2. That
> shouldn't be broken like this, so those changes should be fixed (or
> minimal toolchain expecations need to be documented -- but there
> really is no good reason to require 4.9.0/2.24).

These all come from the GICv3 driver, so it's not going to be a lot of fun
fixing them. You'd have to introduce a macro for generating the system-reg
accesses (for both C and asm), then switch the GIC driver and the arch code
over to using that.

Will