On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:00:28PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:00:12 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -345,13 +378,19 @@ int __init psci_init(void)
> > const struct of_device_id *matched_np;
> > psci_initcall_t init_fn;
> >
> > - np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, psci_of_match, &matched_np);
> > + if (acpi_disabled) {
> > + np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL,
> > + psci_of_match, &matched_np);
> >
> > - if (!np)
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + if (!np)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + init_fn = (psci_initcall_t)matched_np->data;
> > +
> > + return init_fn(np);
> > + }
> >
> > - init_fn = (psci_initcall_t)matched_np->data;
> > - return init_fn(np);
> > + return psci_0_2_init_acpi();
> > }
>
> So, while the functionality is sound, this is kind of a stinky diff. The
> ACPI path should not push the OF code into a sub branch. Make it look
> like this instead (with the advantage that the diff will be simpler):
>
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && !acpi_disabled)
> + return psci_0_2_init_acpi();
Minor point: we should define acpi_disabled to 1 when !CONFIG_ACPI and
avoid additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) checks (unless already don this
way).
--
Catalin
--
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
