On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:29:44PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 04:00:28PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:00:12 +0800, Hanjun Guo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > @@ -345,13 +378,19 @@ int __init psci_init(void) > > > const struct of_device_id *matched_np; > > > psci_initcall_t init_fn; > > > > > > - np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, psci_of_match, &matched_np); > > > + if (acpi_disabled) { > > > + np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, > > > + psci_of_match, &matched_np); > > > > > > - if (!np) > > > - return -ENODEV; > > > + if (!np) > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + > > > + init_fn = (psci_initcall_t)matched_np->data; > > > + > > > + return init_fn(np); > > > + } > > > > > > - init_fn = (psci_initcall_t)matched_np->data; > > > - return init_fn(np); > > > + return psci_0_2_init_acpi(); > > > } > > > > So, while the functionality is sound, this is kind of a stinky diff. The > > ACPI path should not push the OF code into a sub branch. Make it look > > like this instead (with the advantage that the diff will be simpler): > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && !acpi_disabled) > > + return psci_0_2_init_acpi(); > > Minor point: we should define acpi_disabled to 1 when !CONFIG_ACPI and > avoid additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) checks (unless already don this > way). > This is the default behaviour already.
Graeme -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
