lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:33:18 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <>
To:	Catalin Marinas <>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <>,
	Mark Brown <>,
	"" <>,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	"" <>,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Randy Dunlap <>,
	Robert Richter <>,
	Jason Cooper <>,
	"" <>,
	Marc Zyngier <>,
	Daniel Lezcano <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Robert Moore <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	"" <>,
	Olof Johansson <>,
	Liviu Dudau <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,
	Lv Zheng <>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support
 for probing from ACPI

On 01/09/14 18:14, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:08:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
>>>> 	acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>>>> without any #ifdef's.
>>> There's a stub smsc911x_probe_config_acpi() provided in the non-ACPI
>>> case, Arnd's suggestion is basically to remove the stub.
>> I think Catalin is referring to ACPI_HANDLE used without any #ifdefs
>> Catalin, few macros like ACPI_HANDLE and ACPI_PTR are defined in
>> include/linux/acpi.h even when CONFIG_ACPI is not set mainly to
>> avoid #ifdef's around simple assignments like the above one and one
>> in platform_driver.acpi_match_table
> My comment was to Graeme who said that #ifdef's were needed because
> acpi_handle (lowercase) was not defined in the !CONFIG_ACPI case.
> However, further down in the patch it was used without any #ifdef's.

Ah OK, I misunderstood. In that case Graeme statement is wrong.
IIRC acpi_handle is not structure, it's just a ptr used for object
references in ACPI namespace and is available even when !CONFIG_ACPI


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists