On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:08:44AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:

On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

+#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

quoted

Also, -ENOSYS is probably the wrong return value. I think you mean
-ENXIO.

Yes that would make sense thanks.

Not sure if we are planning to actually upstream this patch, I guess it
depends if ARM start shipping Junos with the ACPI tables loaded on them.

I think we do want this upstreamed. Juno is intended to be a readily
available reference platform, regardless of the firmware loaded when
shipped. There will be users who use it as a test platform for ACPI
development.

The patches for Juno are not intrusive. The only problem I have is
giving the wrong example on how to deal with the platform-specific
device information like this patch. I would much prefer to use _DSD
(once we agree on how to do this) than hard-coding information based on
the ACPI device id (you would need one for each SoC). I don't think we
have reached an agreement yet:

https://lkml.kernel.org/g/4816592.tj3on6vUaC at wuerfel

-- 
Catalin