On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> > +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config *config,
> > + acpi_handle *ahandle)
> > +{
> > + if (!ahandle)
> > + return -ENOSYS;
> > +
> > + config->phy_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII;
> >
>
> Please remove the #ifdef and use
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) || !ahandle)
>
> to check for ACPI support. This should result in the same object code
> in all cases, but give better compile-time coverage when ACPI is
> disabled.
>
struct acpi_handle does not exist in the case !CONFIG_ACPI
> Also, -ENOSYS is probably the wrong return value. I think you mean
> -ENXIO.
>
Yes that would make sense thanks.
Not sure if we are planning to actually upstream this patch, I guess it
depends if ARM start shipping Junos with the ACPI tables loaded on them.
Graeme
--
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
