Re: Linux 5.16-rc3

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Wed Dec 01 2021 - 15:50:51 EST


On 12/1/21 12:38 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[+cc linux-pci]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:17 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/28/21 7:07 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 11/28/21 17:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
Build results:
total: 153 pass: 152 fail: 1
Failed builds:
mips:allmodconfig
Qemu test results:
total: 482 pass: 482 fail: 0

Building mips:allmodconfig ... failed
--------------
Error log:
ERROR: modpost: missing MODULE_LICENSE() in drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.o
ERROR: modpost: "mips_cm_unlock_other" [drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "mips_cpc_base" [drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "mips_cm_lock_other" [drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "mips_cm_is64" [drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.ko] undefined!
ERROR: modpost: "mips_gcr_base" [drivers/pci/controller/pcie-mt7621.ko] undefined!

There is still no fix for the mips:allmodconfig build problem as far
as I can see. It is a bit odd, because the fix would be as simple as

config PCIE_MT7621
- tristate "MediaTek MT7621 PCIe Controller"
- depends on (RALINK && SOC_MT7621) || (MIPS && COMPILE_TEST)
+ bool "MediaTek MT7621 PCIe Controller"
+ depends on SOC_MT7621 || (MIPS && COMPILE_TEST)
select PHY_MT7621_PCI
default SOC_MT7621
help

Context: tristate doesn't make sense here because both RALINK and
SOC_MT7621 are bool. Also, RALINK is redundant because SOC_MT7621
already depends on it. The compile failure is due to missing exported
symbols, and it is only seen if PCIE_MT7621=m - which is only possible
if COMPILE_TEST=y. In other words, the dependencies above are set such
that test builds, and only test builds, fail.

The problem was introduced with commit 2bdd5238e756 ("PCI: mt7621:
Add MediaTek MT7621 PCIe host controller driver"). Copying some of
those responsible to see if we can expect a solution sometime soon.

Can we do a minimal patch along the lines of the above for v5.16?


I would suggest to either do that or, if module support is mandatory,
revert the patch and re-apply it if and when it can be built as module.

Guenter