linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: bme680_i2c: Make bme680_acpi_match depend on CONFIG

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

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdOPkRrAWo9tFvN-9HhXfCGo8hA7V0jypPiLnibUCbuVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 20:46:29 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: bme680_i2c: Make bme680_acpi_match depend on CONFIG_ACPI

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:40 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > With CONFIG_ACPI=n and -Werror, 0-day reports:
> >
> > drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_i2c.c:46:36: error:
> >         'bme680_acpi_match' defined but not used
>
> > Given the other patch, question of course is if this ACPI ID
> > is real. A Google search suggests that this might not be the case.
> > Should we remove it as well ? STK8312 has the same problem.
>
> For this one definitely removal. Looking into the code it suggests a
> cargo cult taken that time by a few contributors to invent fake ACPI
> IDs while submitting new drivers.
> Feel free to add my tag or if you wish me I'll add it explicitly.

Had just looked at STK, the same guy as for AOS2315. So, also to remove.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko