>>>
>>> static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> @@ -681,6 +697,7 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> dra7xx->link_gen = 2;
>>>
>>> switch (mode) {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DRA7XX_HOST
>>> case DW_PCIE_RC_TYPE:
>>> dra7xx_pcie_writel(dra7xx, PCIECTRL_TI_CONF_DEVICE_TYPE,
>>> DEVICE_TYPE_RC);
>>> @@ -688,6 +705,8 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> goto err_gpio;
>>> break;
>>> +#endif
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DRA7XX_EP
>>> case DW_PCIE_EP_TYPE:
>>> dra7xx_pcie_writel(dra7xx, PCIECTRL_TI_CONF_DEVICE_TYPE,
>>> DEVICE_TYPE_EP);
>>> @@ -700,6 +719,7 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> goto err_gpio;
>>> break;
>>> +#endif
>
> Actually, these ifdefs has to stay, otherwise we get build warnings, since we
> are calling functions that aren't defined (dra7xx_pcie_ep_unaligned_memaccess,
> dra7xx_add_pcie_ep, dra7xx_add_pcie_port).
> We could add dummy implementations for these inside an #else block following
> the ifdef blocks. However, I think that adding dummy implementations in the
> #else block is uglier and more verbose than keeping the ifdefs around the
> two cases.
>
..however, if you prefer dummy implementations inside the #else blocks,
I will of course do that.
Regards,
Niklas
