Re: [PATCH] PCI: fix build errors with CONFIG_PCI=n

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> 
>>Fix (most of) kernel build for CONFIG_PCI=n.  Fixes these 3 errors:
>>
>>1. drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:3162: error: `parport_init_mode'
>>undeclared (first use in this function)
> 
> 
> Life is easier if you do not use attachments.
> (Then I can more easily comment the code.)

I understand.  If the decision were only so simple.

> You write
> 
>   -static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str) {
>   -
>   +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>   +static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(const char *str)
> 
> In my tree I have
> 
>   static int __init parport_init_mode_setup(char *str) {
> 
> in order to avoid the warning for
> 
>   __setup("parport_init_mode=",parport_init_mode_setup);
> 
> since the parameter is a int (*setup_func)(char *); - see
> 
>   struct obs_kernel_param {
>         const char *str;
>         int (*setup_func)(char *);
>         int early;
>   };

Yes, I'm familiar with that, but I made a patch against current
top of tree.

> Apart from this prototype change I only moved the single line
> 
>   static int __initdata parport_init_mode = 0;
> 
> outside the #ifdef's. Is that not good enough, and better
> than introducing more #ifdef's? Keeps the source smaller.

It can be good enough.  It keeps the source smaller, at
the expense of adding some unneeded code (the
parport_init_mode_setup() function e.g.).

-- 
~Randy