在 2021/1/12 下午6:42, Hans de Goede 写道:

Hi,

On 1/8/21 9:52 AM, kernel test robot wrote:

[...]

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <redacted>

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

[...]

quoted

    2 errors generated.

Oops, thanks for the reminder, I should exclude 0day CI from mail filter.
It's wired that GCC didn't say anything about it.

Ugh, so that means that the current version of the
"ACPI: platform-profile: Pass profile pointer to driver callbacks"
patch is no good. Since this is causing compile errors I assume
that it will be dropped from the bleeding-edge branch.
Is that right Rafael?

I'm not familiar with x86pdx and ACPI workflow.
Should I resend the patch or send a fixup patch?

I believe that the best fix is to just drop the const everywhere,
neither of the 2 planned uses has its platform_profile_handler defined
as const:

1. In the thinkpad_acpi case it is not const, because of using set_bit
calls to set the choices bits.

2. In the ideapad-laptop case it is not const because it will be
embedded in the dynamically allocated drv_data struct.

Jiaxun, can you do a new version where you drop the const (and
explain why this is done in the commit message)  ?

Appreciate for your patient investigation!

Regards,

Hans

[...]

Thanks.

- Jiaxun