On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:52:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:19:27PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:59:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 02:50:34PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:56:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:29:04PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: ... > > > > > > +#include <asm/acpi.h> > > > > > > > > > > What do you need this for? > > > > > > > > > > > #include <asm/cacheflush.h> > > > > > > > > > When CONFIG_ACPI is disabled, this include is required to get > > > > acpi_get_cbo_block_size(). > > > > > > How is it useful without ACPI being enabled? > > > > It is not, as evidenced by the `return -EINVAL;`. > > > > > If it's indeed > > > (in which I do not believe), better to make sure you have it > > > avaiable independently on CONFIG_ACPI. Otherwise, just put > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI around the call. > > > > Let's not litter the code with ifdeffery please where it can be easily > > avoided. > > Including asm/acpi.h looks to me as a "let's avoid it with a hack that it > is uglier than ifdeffery". Sorry, but ifdeffery for ACPI, with all my full > agreement with the statement that it's not good, is the correct way to fix > this. On the other hand this is an arch code and I see precedents of using the headers together, alas, it seems not better to me that ugly ifdeffery. So, I leave it to the respective maintainers to decide. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
