The RISC-V port doesn't suport a nommu mode, so there is no reason
to provide some code only under a CONFIG_MMU ifdef.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Olaf said: Here's a short series of patches that produces a working
allmodconfig. Would be nice to see them go in so we can add build
coverage.
I've dropped patches 8 and 10 from the original set:
* [PATCH 08/10] (RISC-V: Set __ARCH_WANT_RENAMEAT to pick up generic
version) has a better fix that I've sent out for review, we don't want
renameat.
* [PATCH 10/10] (input: joystick: riscv has get_cycles) has already been
taken into Dmitry Torokhov's tree.
Whoops -- I must have just been being an idiot again. Thanks to Segher
for finding the bug :).
CC: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
include <linux/types.h> for __iomem definition. Also, add volatile to
iounmap() like other architectures have it to avoid "discarding
volatile" warnings from some drivers.
Finally, explicitly promote the base address for INB/OUTB functions to
avoid some old legacy drivers complaining about int-to-ptr promotions.
The drivers are unlikely to work but they're included in allmodconfig
so the warnings are noisy.
Fixes, among other warnings, these with allmodconfig:
../arch/riscv/include/asm/io.h:24:21: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before '*' token
extern void __iomem *ioremap(phys_addr_t offset, unsigned long size);
sound/pci/echoaudio/echoaudio.c: In function 'snd_echo_free':
sound/pci/echoaudio/echoaudio.c:1879:10: warning: passing argument 1 of 'iounmap' discards 'volatile' qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
This contains all the code that directly interfaces with the RISC-V
memory model. While this code corforms to the current RISC-V ISA
specifications (user 2.2 and priv 1.10), the memory model is somewhat
underspecified in those documents. There is a working group that hopes
to produce a formal memory model by the end of the year, but my
understanding is that the basic definitions we're relying on here won't
change significantly.
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
