Re: [RFC 1/2] i2c: Use stable dev_name for ACPI enumerated I2C slaves

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Friday, October 25, 2013 04:30:23 PM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 04:18 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 03:55:29 PM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, acpi_bus_get_device() is not available for non-ACPI builds and at
> >> least the gcc I used for test build didn't optimize that block away.
> > Well, it should.  ACPI_HANDLE() translates to (NULL) if CONFIG_ACPI
> > is not defined and that causes the check to become "if (NULL)" which
> > should always be dropped by the compiler.
> >
> My very vague memory says the same. I don't know is this gcc version or 
> flag dependent behavior. I got the build error from both i386 build 
> using gcc 4.8.1 and arm build by using make ARCH=arm omap2plus_defconfig 
> and gcc-4.7-arm-linux-gnueabi 4.7.2-4.
> > Does providing a stub acpi_bus_get_device() for !CONFIG_ACPI actually help?
> >
> >
> Hmm, not only. Referencing to dev field in struct acpi_device by 
> dev_name(&adev->dev) here will fail too.

Well, something is not quite right here.

One of the *reasons* for having ACPI_HANDLE() defined this way is to avoid
using explicit CONFIG_ACPI checks, so if that doesn't work, then all of that
becomes a bit pointless.

Thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux