[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5404ADDE.1090205@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:33:18 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>
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
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists