linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: fix intel_mid_pci.c build error when ACPI is not enabled

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJmaN=khV6By1e8LnkbK+mgFweqnmXcu6hhjDzyD1uiFASC2Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:24:30 -0700
From:   Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: fix intel_mid_pci.c build error when ACPI is not enabled

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:08 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/13/20 1:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:31 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2020 12:58 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> >>>
> >>> Fix build error when CONFIG_ACPI is not set/enabled by adding
> >>> the header file <asm/acpi.h> which contains a stub for the function
> >>> in the build error.
> >>>
> >>> ../arch/x86/pci/intel_mid_pci.c: In function ‘intel_mid_pci_init’:
> >>> ../arch/x86/pci/intel_mid_pci.c:303:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘acpi_noirq_set’; did you mean ‘acpi_irq_get’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >>>    acpi_noirq_set();
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > Thanks!
>
> also:
> Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
>
> >
> >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> >>> Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> >>> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> >>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
> >>> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
> >>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> >>> Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
> >>> ---
> >>> Found in linux-next, but applies to/exists in mainline also.
> >>>
> >>> Alternative.1: X86_INTEL_MID depends on ACPI
> >>> Alternative.2: drop X86_INTEL_MID support
> >>
> >> at this point I'd suggest Alternative 2; the products that needed that (past tense, that technology
> >> is no longer need for any newer products) never shipped in any form where a 4.x or 5.x kernel could
> >> work, and they are also all locked down...
> >
> > This is not true. We have Intel Edison which runs nicely on vanilla
> > (not everything, some is still requiring a couple of patches, but most
> > of it works out-of-the-box).
> >
> > And for the record, I have been working on removing quite a pile of
> > code (~13kLOCs to the date IIRC) in MID area. Just need some time to
> > fix Edison watchdog for that.
>
>
> I didn't see a consensus on this patch, although Andy says it's still needed,
> so it shouldn't be removed (yet). Maybe his big removal patch can remove it
> later. For now can we just fix the build error?


Yeah I think it makes sense to land it.  Doesn't get in the way of a
future removal and fixes a build error in the meantime.

Jesse