Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: power: domain: Use 'pm_cpu_data' instead of 'cpu_data' for compiling break

[Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>]

On 10/5/14 10:42, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/04/14 09:00, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 10:19:50PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> 'cpu_data' is too common to be already used by some architectures (e.g.
>>> um, m32r, and mn10300), so need use 'pm_cpu_data' instead of, or cause
>>> compiling break. The related error (with allmodconfig under um):
>>>
>>>     CC      drivers/base/platform.o
>>>   In file included from ./arch/x86/um/asm/processor.h:31:0,
>>>                    from ./arch/um/include/asm/uaccess.h:16,
>>>                    from ./arch/um/include/asm/thread_info.h:13,
>>>                    from include/linux/thread_info.h:54,
>>>                    from include/asm-generic/current.h:4,
>>>                    from arch/um/include/generated/asm/current.h:1,
>>>                    from include/linux/mutex.h:13,
>>>                    from include/linux/kernfs.h:13,
>>>                    from include/linux/sysfs.h:15,
>>>                    from include/linux/kobject.h:21,
>>>                    from include/linux/device.h:17,
>>>                    from include/linux/platform_device.h:14,
>>>                    from drivers/base/platform.c:14:
>>>   ./arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h:107:19: error: expected identifier or '(' before '&' token
>>>    #define cpu_data (&boot_cpu_data)
>>>                      ^
>>>   include/linux/pm_domain.h:74:23: note: in expansion of macro 'cpu_data'
>>>     struct gpd_cpu_data *cpu_data;
>>>                        ^
>>>
>>> Also need notice about 80 columns boundary.
>>
>> I don't object to this change at all, but it could be easier to solve
>> this by fixing up 'cpu_data' to be named something a bit less "generic"?
>> What does x86 use for this data type?
> 
> The patch makes sense to me.
> 
> These arch-es already have 'cpu_data' in some form:
> 
> mips, sparc, arm64, blackfin, frv, mn10300, parisc, um(l), c6x, x86, xtensa,
> alpha, m32r, arm, ia64, metag, sn.
> 

Yeah, and m32r, mn10300 and um may let cpu_data as macro variable, which
may cause this issue. And others let cpu_data as function (or like a
function), I guess, they may not cause this issue.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed