在 2021/1/12 下午6:42, Hans de Goede 写道:
Hi, On 1/8/21 9:52 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
[...]
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
[...]
2 errors generated.
Oops, thanks for the reminder, I should exclude 0day CI from mail filter. It's wired that GCC didn't say anything about it.
Ugh, so that means that the current version of the "ACPI: platform-profile: Pass profile pointer to driver callbacks" patch is no good. Since this is causing compile errors I assume that it will be dropped from the bleeding-edge branch. Is that right Rafael?
I'm not familiar with x86pdx and ACPI workflow. Should I resend the patch or send a fixup patch?
I believe that the best fix is to just drop the const everywhere, neither of the 2 planned uses has its platform_profile_handler defined as const: 1. In the thinkpad_acpi case it is not const, because of using set_bit calls to set the choices bits. 2. In the ideapad-laptop case it is not const because it will be embedded in the dynamically allocated drv_data struct. Jiaxun, can you do a new version where you drop the const (and explain why this is done in the commit message) ?
Appreciate for your patient investigation!
Regards, Hans
[...] Thanks. - Jiaxun
