Re: [PATCH] x86: undef REG_IN/REG_OUT to avoid define collisions

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:33:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/30/22 08:28, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > These defines are only used in the inline functions declared
> > in the arch_hweight.h file, and collides with internal defines
> > of the Amlogic Mes pinctrl driver when COMPILE_TEST is enabled:
> > 
> > arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h:9:17: error: expected identifier before string constant
> > 9 | #define REG_OUT "a"
> >   |                 ^~~
> > drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson.h:69:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘REG_OUT’
> > 69 |         REG_OUT,

Thanks for the patch!

> > Reported-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > index ba88edd0d58b..139a4b0a2a14 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > @@ -52,4 +52,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned long __arch_hweight64(__u64 w)
> >  }
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
> >  
> > +#undef REG_IN
> > +#undef REG_OUT
> 
> Wouldn't it be a bit less hackish to give these a more qualified name
> like HWEIGHT_REG_IN?

Either way, would it be good to undef them here anyway?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko