On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory 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
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
without any #ifdef's.
--
Catalin
--
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/
