On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>
> > 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.
I think we do want this upstreamed. Juno is intended to be a readily
available reference platform, regardless of the firmware loaded when
shipped. There will be users who use it as a test platform for ACPI
development.
g.
--
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
