Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:49:54 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] acpi: Fix ARM32 platforms compile issue introduced by fw_table changes | From | Sam Edwards <> |
| |
On 11/21/23 07:58, Dave Jiang wrote: > Linus reported that: > After commit a103f46633fd the kernel stopped compiling for > several ARM32 platforms that I am building with a bare metal > compiler. Bare metal compilers (arm-none-eabi-) don't > define __linux__. > > This is because the header <acpi/platform/acenv.h> is now > in the include path for <linux/irq.h>: > > CC arch/arm/kernel/irq.o > CC kernel/sysctl.o > CC crypto/api.o > In file included from ../include/acpi/acpi.h:22, > from ../include/linux/fw_table.h:29, > from ../include/linux/acpi.h:18, > from ../include/linux/irqchip.h:14, > from ../arch/arm/kernel/irq.c:25: > ../include/acpi/platform/acenv.h:218:2: error: #error Unknown target environment > 218 | #error Unknown target environment > | ^~~~~ > > The issue is caused by the introducing of splitting out the ACPI code to > support the new generic fw_table code. > > Rafael suggested moving the fw_table.h include in linux/acpi.h to below > the asm/acpi.h. The move also helped with eliminating the inclusion of > acpi/acpi.h in fw_table.h. The unfortunate circular inclusion of > linux/acpi.h is needed for fw_table.h due fw_table code needing the > defined acpi structs in order to build. > > Fixes: a103f46633fd ("acpi: Move common tables helper functions to common lib") > Reported-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > --- > include/linux/acpi.h | 23 ++++++++++++----------- > include/linux/fw_table.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h > index 54189e0e5f41..2789beb26138 100644 > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h > @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> > #include <linux/property.h> > #include <linux/uuid.h> > -#include <linux/fw_table.h> > > struct irq_domain; > struct irq_domain_ops; > @@ -25,16 +24,6 @@ struct irq_domain_ops; > #endif > #include <acpi/acpi.h> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_LIB > -#define EXPORT_SYMBOL_ACPI_LIB(x) EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(x, ACPI) > -#define __init_or_acpilib > -#define __initdata_or_acpilib > -#else > -#define EXPORT_SYMBOL_ACPI_LIB(x) > -#define __init_or_acpilib __init > -#define __initdata_or_acpilib __initdata > -#endif > - > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > > #include <linux/list.h> > @@ -48,6 +37,18 @@ struct irq_domain_ops; > #include <acpi/acpi_io.h> > #include <asm/acpi.h> > > +#include <linux/fw_table.h> > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_LIB > +#define EXPORT_SYMBOL_ACPI_LIB(x) EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(x, ACPI) > +#define __init_or_acpilib > +#define __initdata_or_acpilib > +#else > +#define EXPORT_SYMBOL_ACPI_LIB(x) > +#define __init_or_acpilib __init > +#define __initdata_or_acpilib __initdata > +#endif > + > static inline acpi_handle acpi_device_handle(struct acpi_device *adev) > { > return adev ? adev->handle : NULL; > diff --git a/include/linux/fw_table.h b/include/linux/fw_table.h > index ff8fa58d5818..a722300c215b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fw_table.h > +++ b/include/linux/fw_table.h > @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ struct acpi_subtable_proc { > }; > > #include <linux/acpi.h> > -#include <acpi/acpi.h>
Hi Dave,
Seems to me that the #include <linux/acpi.h> should go too, to break the circular including cycle. If it remains, I fear that there could be subtle problems in the future depending on which header is included first in a compilation unit. It sounds now like the only correct way to get fw_table.h included is transitively via linux/acpi.h (of note: lib/fw_table.c will have to be updated; it's the only file that currently breaks this rule) so that removal will just help enforce this. Plus, includes in the middle of non-preprocessor declarations are a (sometimes necessary, definitely not here) code smell, in my view.
If this include must remain for some reason, perhaps a comment should be added to call attention to the circular situation and provide justification?
Cheers, Sam
> > union acpi_subtable_headers { > struct acpi_subtable_header common; > > > >
| |