Hi Okan,
Have you sent a follow up fix? The build should not remain broken for
so long. Otherwise I think Broonie should drop your patch.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:51 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 08:34:44AM +0000, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> > +static struct regulator_desc max77857_regulator_desc = {
> > >> > + .ops = &max77857_regulator_ops,
> > >> > + .name = "max77857",
> > >> > + .linear_ranges = max77857_lin_ranges,
> > >> > + .n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(max77857_lin_ranges),
> > >> > + .vsel_mask = 0xFF,
> > >> > + .vsel_reg = MAX77857_REG_CONT2,
> > >> > + .ramp_delay_table = max77857_ramp_table[0],
> > >> > + .n_ramp_values = ARRAY_SIZE(max77857_ramp_table[0]),
> > >> > + .ramp_reg = MAX77857_REG_CONT3,
> > >> > + .ramp_mask = GENMASK(1, 0),
> > >> > + .ramp_delay = max77857_ramp_table[0][0],
> > >>
> > >> This breaks the build with GCC 5.x through 7.x:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/regulator/max77857-regulator.c:312:16: error: initializer element is not
> > >constant
> > >> .ramp_delay = max77857_ramp_table[0][0],
> > >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> drivers/regulator/max77857-regulator.c:312:16: note: (near initialization for
> > >'max77857_regulator_desc.ramp_delay')
> > >>
> > >> and clang:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/regulator/max77857-regulator.c:312:16: error: initializer element is not a
> > >compile-time constant
> > >> 312 | .ramp_delay = max77857_ramp_table[0][0],
> > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> 1 error generated.
> > >>
> > >> This relies on a GCC 8.x+ change that accepts more things as
> > >> compile-time constants, which is being worked on in clang
> > >>
> > >(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://reviews.llvm.org/D76096__;!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!7B
> > >eWxuzHgLzOprQA_madbvdR7hd0ZgmS73lUlDbgoxWUFWdDSIRXLnhyqLeRhu3uTaqpS
> > >kzZKwc5pHA$ ). Since the kernel supports older
> > >> compilers, this will have to be worked around somehow. Perhaps a define
> > >> that can be used in both places?
> > >
> > >Was there any update on this? I do not mind sending a patch for this
> > >myself if I have some sort of guidance on how you would prefer for this
> > >to be fixed, should you be too busy to look into it.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Nathan
> >
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > I thought that I should fix this issue after merging main branch that's why I did not send patch.
>
> That is an understandable position but no, this issue should be fixed
> before this change makes its way to Linus, not after.
>
> > I sent patch v3 so should I send new patch as v4?
>
> No, you should checkout Mark's branch that contains your patch and send
> a new patch on top of it just fixing this issue, like the other two
> patches that have already touched this driver:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git/log/?h=for-6.6
>
> https://git.kernel.org/broonie/regulator/c/2920e08bef609c8b59f9996fd6852a7b97119d75
> https://git.kernel.org/broonie/regulator/c/541e75954cadde0355ce7bebed5675625b2943a8
>
> There are GCC 7.x and earlier toolchains at
> https://kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ and LLVM toolchains at
> https://kernel.org/pub/tools/llvm/ should need to reproduce and verify
> the fix.
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan
>
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
