On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2017 at 18:09:09 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Alexandre Belloni
>>> <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>> > On 21/02/2017 at 13:02:21 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> >> Abusing platform data with pointers is also not welcome.
>
>>> >> > (in this case, avr32).
>>> >>
>>> >> It's dead de facto.
>>> >>
>>> >> When last time did you compile kernel for it? What was the version of
>>> >> kernel?
>>> >> Did it get successfully?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > v4.10-rc3 was building successfully but had some issues in the network
>>> > code.
>>>
>>> Newer kernel doesn't link...
>>>
>>> >> When are we going to remove avr32 support from kernel completely?
>>>
>>> > Ask that to the avr32 maintainers. It still builds and is still booted
>>> > by some people. And that actually seems to be you as you reported a bug
>>> > we introduced in 4.3. I don't think we had any other report after that.
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9505727/
>>>
>>> After that I gave up on it. Next time I will escalate directly to
>>> Linus. It's a complete necrophilia. I spent already enough time to
>>> look at that code. It brings now more burden than supports someone
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>
>> As said, it builds fine without networking.
>
> It sounds a bit sarcastic. Irony is that I *have* hardware here which
> was dedicated as Network Gateway (ATNGW100). I'm accessing to it
> remotely.
> How useful it would be?
>
>> Maybe the first step is to
>> ask the avr32 maintainers. If you already did so,
>
> I did it ~year or so before where another relocation bug was discovered
> (fixed).
>
>> please feel free to
>> send a patch to remove the whole architecture.
>> The benefits for atmel will be: proper big endian support, removal of
>> platform data from all the drivers, better clocksource handling.
>
> That is good point, but if maintainers don't care, why anyone else should?
> Neither do I.
>
>>> > It can be frustrating at times to handle that platform but if it is
>>> > working for someone, I don't see why we would remove it.
>>>
>>> How it's working if it's not linked?
>>>
>>
>> Come on, v4.10 has just been release and
It doesn't build anymore. And current case even worse
Face it. It's dead.
MODPOST vmlinux.o
WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x1f2bd4): Section mismatch in reference from
the variable __param_ops_mtd to the functio
n .init.text:ubi_mtd_param_parse()
The function __param_ops_mtd() references
the function __init ubi_mtd_param_parse().
This is often because __param_ops_mtd lacks a __init
annotation or the annotation of ubi_mtd_param_parse is wrong.
crypto/built-in.o: warning: input is not relaxable
virt/built-in.o: warning: input is not relaxable
net/built-in.o: In function `rtnl_fill_ifinfo':
net/socket.c:451: relocation truncated to fit: R_AVR32_11H_PCREL
against `.text'+22768
Makefile:969: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed
> v4.9 was building just fine. Do
>> you really expect everybody to closely follow linux-next or update
>> overnight?
>
> What version do you use as compiler?
>
> Today's linux-next:
> $ make O=~/prj/TMP/out/avr32 C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ -j64 CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=
> y CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y
>
> CC lib/sbitmap.o
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:378: Warning: Unary operator + ignored because bad
> operand follows
> {standard input}:378: Warning: missing operand; zero assumed
> {standard input}:378: Internal error!
> Assertion failure in finish_insn at .././gas/config/tc-avr32.c line 3498.
> Please report this bug.
> scripts/Makefile.build:294: recipe for target 'lib/sbitmap.o' failed
>
> $ avr32-linux-gcc --version
> avr32-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.2.2-atmel.1.0.8
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
