objtool: Validate disassembler headers in libopcodes probegrafted

commit 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries")
tested for libopcodes availability by linking a test snippet with a forward
declaration of disassemble_init_for_target().

However, testing symbol linkage with an extern declaration only verifies
the presence of the library (.so/.a) and bypasses checking for development
headers (binutils-dev). On systems where libopcodes is present without
development headers installed, the probe succeeds, enabling BUILD_DISAS.
Subsequent compilation of objtool then fails:

  fatal error: 'bfd.h' file not found
    113 | #include <bfd.h>

Additionally, the probe invokes $(HOSTCC) without $(HOSTCFLAGS), ignoring
any sysroot or include flags specified for the host compiler.

Fix this by including <bfd.h> and <dis-asm.h> directly in the test snippet,
passing $(HOSTCFLAGS) so host compiler options are respected, and defining
PACKAGE="objtool" to satisfy the configuration check in <bfd.h>.

Fixes: 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries")
Fixes: 436326bc525d ("objtool: fix build failure due to missing libopcodes check")
Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Assisted-by: Antigravity:Gemini-Next
Signed-off-by: Ulises Mendez Martinez <umendez@google.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260904150710.2997558-1-umendez@google.com
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..13ab13984
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
+
+==========
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core
+and nova-drm.
+
+Language
+========
+
+The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules
+of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules
+apply.
+
+- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written
+  in Rust.
+
+- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of
+  technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component
+  providing a safe API for other driver code to use.
+
+Style
+-----
+
+All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply.
+
+For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist
+addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_.
+
+Documentation
+=============
+
+The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability,
+accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general,
+but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting.
+
+Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project.
+
+Besides that, there are some minimum requirements.
+
+- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the
+  semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime
+  requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for
+  non-trivial private structures.
+
+- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the
+  semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner
+  cases.
+
+- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers
+  must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and
+  lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable.
+
+- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely
+  defined.
+
+- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly;
+  unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if
+  the author is able to obtain the corresponding information.
+
+Acceptance Criteria
+===================
+
+- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the
+  mailing list; this also applies for maintainers.