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