On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > 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
>
> Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
>
> acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>
> without any #ifdef's.
>
It is possible I confused myself as some types moved around in ACPI
recently. I will re-check!
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
