On Monday, October 28, 2013 03:15:25 PM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> Hi Rafael
>
> On 10/25/2013 05:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 04:30:23 PM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> >>>
> >> 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.
> >
Can you please send patches inline instead of using inline attachments,
so that people don't have to paste your patches back to comment them?
> One possible thing to do is to let structure definitions to be available
> for non-ACPI builds. Then compiler won't fail on structure access which
> will be anyway optimized away by later compiler stages.
Yes, we can do that, but as I said that means we're giving up on the "why
ACPI_HANDLE() doesn't work as expected" front. For now, I'd like to
understand what's up before making that change. Moreover ->
> With a quick test below vmlinux section sizes don't change for couple
> non-ACPI build tests and allow to get rid off IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
> test in this patch. It's very minimal as it only moves the CONFIG_ACPI
> test just after the struct acpi_device definition and defines
> acpi_bus_get_device for non-ACPI case.
>
> What I don't know how consistent it is as there are still couple
> structure definitions under CONFIG_ACPI, doesn't touch other acpi
> headers and requires to include acpi_bus.h in driver (or move acpi_bus.h
> include in linux/acpi.h currently under CONFIG_ACPI).
>
> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> index d901982..7ab7870 100644
> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> @@ -66,8 +66,6 @@ bool acpi_ata_match(acpi_handle handle);
>
> bool acpi_bay_match(acpi_handle handle);
> bool acpi_dock_match(acpi_handle handle);
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> -
>
> #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
>
> #define ACPI_BUS_FILE_ROOT "acpi"
>
> @@ -314,6 +312,8 @@ struct acpi_device {
>
> void (*remove)(struct acpi_device *);
>
> };
>
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
> +
>
> static inline void *acpi_driver_data(struct acpi_device *d)
> {
>
> return d->driver_data;
>
> @@ -531,6 +531,8 @@ static inline bool acpi_device_can_poweroff(struct
> acpi_device *adev)
>
> static inline int register_acpi_bus_type(void *bus) { return 0; }
> static inline int unregister_acpi_bus_type(void *bus) { return 0; }
>
> +static inline int acpi_bus_get_device(acpi_handle handle,
> + struct acpi_device **device) { return 0; }
This has to return an error code, because otherwise the caller can assume
*device to be a valid pointer after it returns which may not be the case.
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
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
