Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes: Hello Thomas, > Hi Javier > > Am 16.09.24 um 10:36 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: >> Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> Hello Thomas and Tzung-Bi, >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Am 15.09.24 um 09:44 schrieb kernel test robot: >>>> Hi Javier, >>>> >>>> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: >>>> >>>> [auto build test ERROR on chrome-platform/for-next] >>>> [also build test ERROR on chrome-platform/for-firmware-next linus/master v6.11-rc7 next-20240913] >>>> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. >>>> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in >>>> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] >>>> >>>> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Javier-Martinez-Canillas/firmware-coreboot-Don-t-register-a-pdev-if-screen_info-data-is-present/20240914-053323 >>>> base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chrome-platform/linux.git for-next >>>> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240913213246.1549213-1-javierm%40redhat.com >>>> patch subject: [PATCH v3] firmware: coreboot: Don't register a pdev if screen_info data is present >>>> config: riscv-randconfig-001-20240915 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240915/202409151528.CIWZRPBq-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) >>>> compiler: clang version 15.0.7 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 8dfdcc7b7bf66834a761bd8de445840ef68e4d1a) >>>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240915/202409151528.CIWZRPBq-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce) >>>> >>>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of >>>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags >>>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202409151528.CIWZRPBq-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >>>> >>>>>> ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: screen_info >>>> >>> referenced by framebuffer-coreboot.c:27 (drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c:27) >>>> >>> drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.o:(framebuffer_probe) in archive vmlinux.a >>>> >>> referenced by framebuffer-coreboot.c:27 (drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.c:27) >>>> >>> drivers/firmware/google/framebuffer-coreboot.o:(framebuffer_probe) in archive vmlinux.a >>> Not all platforms define screen_info. Maybe fix this by following >> Yes, after reading the build errors reported by the robot I remembered >> that we had similar issues with sysfb, for example commit 1260b9a7020 >> ("drivers/firmware: fix SYSFB depends to prevent build failures") fixed >> one of those. >> >>> Tzung-Bi's advice of removing the local variables and then guard the >>> test by CONFIG_SYSFB. If SYSFB has been defined, screen_info has to be >>> there. It's not a super pretty solution, though. >>> >> If possible I would prefer to avoid the ifdefery in the driver. I also >> believe that the local variables makes the code easier to read. But if >> you folks think that's better to drop them, I can do it in the next rev. >> >> Another option is to restrict the architectures where this driver could >> be build. As far as I understand it is mainly for x86 and ARM64 arches. >> >> These two have a screen_info defined so the driver will build correctly. >> I can include a preparatory patch that adds a "depends on x86 || ARM64". > > That feels arbitrary, as the dependency is not really in coreboot, but > in sysbf. What you'd want is a HAVE_SCREEN_INFO define on the > architectures that provide it. IIRC earlier attempts to add this have > failed. :/ > > If you don't want the ifdef-ery in coreboot.c, you could add a helper to > sysfb. Let's say > > bool sysfb_handles_screen_info(void) > > returns the result of the test. If you put it next to sysfb_disable(), > you could add an empty wrapper into the sysfb.h header as well. [1] > > (There's still the possibility that screen_info is available, but sysfb > has been disabled. But that's not different from how it currently works.) > I like that. And when SYSFB is not enabled, sysfb_handles_screen_info() could just be defined as "return false;" which will indicate to drivers that would have to handle the system frambuffer themselves. I'll try to type the patches later today. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
