Raise minimum clang version to 19.1.0 for s390 so that various inline
assembly format flags can be used. The missing format flags were
implemented with llvm-project commit 9c75a981554d ("[SystemZ] Implement A,
O and R inline assembly format flags (#80685)").

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
---
 scripts/min-tool-version.sh | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
index 91c91201212c..2dc674a74624 100755
--- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
+++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ gcc)
 	;;
 llvm)
 	if [ "$SRCARCH" = s390 ]; then
-		echo 15.0.0
+		echo 19.1.0
 	elif [ "$SRCARCH" = loongarch ]; then
 		echo 18.0.0
 	else
-- 
2.45.2

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Raise minimum clang version to 19.1.0 for s390 so that various inline
> assembly format flags can be used. The missing format flags were
> implemented with llvm-project commit 9c75a981554d ("[SystemZ] Implement A,
> O and R inline assembly format flags (#80685)").
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>

Oof, this is quite new but now that kernel.org has LLVM binaries
available, I do not think this is an unreasonable ask, especially if it
makes your life easier with code maintenance.

Acked-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>

One question: Is it worth dropping the mention about CC=clang for
clang-18 and older in Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst? Maybe it is better
to leave it around for a bit just in case people read the newer
documentation while working on an older kernel?

> ---
>  scripts/min-tool-version.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> index 91c91201212c..2dc674a74624 100755
> --- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> +++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ gcc)
>  	;;
>  llvm)
>  	if [ "$SRCARCH" = s390 ]; then
> -		echo 15.0.0
> +		echo 19.1.0
>  	elif [ "$SRCARCH" = loongarch ]; then
>  		echo 18.0.0
>  	else
> -- 
> 2.45.2
>

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:21:09AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Raise minimum clang version to 19.1.0 for s390 so that various inline
> > assembly format flags can be used. The missing format flags were
> > implemented with llvm-project commit 9c75a981554d ("[SystemZ] Implement A,
> > O and R inline assembly format flags (#80685)").
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Oof, this is quite new but now that kernel.org has LLVM binaries
> available, I do not think this is an unreasonable ask, especially if it
> makes your life easier with code maintenance.

Thanks for your feedback! I read this as "is nearly unreasonable" :)

Even though you acked this, I guess I will drop this for now and
maybe address this a few clang versions later.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 06:05:24PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:21:09AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > Raise minimum clang version to 19.1.0 for s390 so that various inline
> > > assembly format flags can be used. The missing format flags were
> > > implemented with llvm-project commit 9c75a981554d ("[SystemZ] Implement A,
> > > O and R inline assembly format flags (#80685)").
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Oof, this is quite new but now that kernel.org has LLVM binaries
> > available, I do not think this is an unreasonable ask, especially if it
> > makes your life easier with code maintenance.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback! I read this as "is nearly unreasonable" :)

Yeah, that is probably a fair way to put it :)

> Even though you acked this, I guess I will drop this for now and
> maybe address this a few clang versions later.

Yes, I think waiting until that LLVM change has had some time to
actually make it into the hands of users would be good if it is not too
much of a burden. However, if you start writing new kernel code that depends on
these format flags, it may be reasonable to revisit this series at that
point for ease of maintenance on your end.

Cheers,
Nathan