Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16-rc6 calls check_acpi_pci() on x86 with ACPI disabled

[Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 06:06:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:45:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Andrew! Folks!
> > > > 
> > > > check_acpi_pci() is called form arch/i386/kernel/setup.c
> > > > even if CONFIG_ACPI is not defined, but the code in
> > > > include/asm/acpi.h doesn't provide it in this case, 
> > > 
> > > Well that's a shame.
> > > 
> > > > so either we need to move the declaration outside the 
> > > > CONFIG_ACPI check, or alternatively move the call in
> > > > setup.c inside the CONFIG_ACPI one
> > > > 
> > > > attached two patches which would do this
> > > 
> > > Prefer the first version.  But it'll break if CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC &&
> > > !CONFIG_ACPI
> > > 
> > > So how's about this?
> > 
> > hmm, well, the comment around the check_acpi_pci() call
> > says: "Checks more than just ACPI actually", so I didn't
> > want to make it depend on ACPI in the 'first' version,
> > which now would change semantics, but if it is fine to
> > make it depend on ACPI, the second version might be the
> > simpler solution (which should have the same semantic as
> > your version ... I think
> > 
> > maybe the ACPI folks should clarify if this stuff has to
> > be run if ACPI is off, in which case renaming the thing
> > might be a good idea ...
> 
> Yes, actually I didn't check closely enough - arch/i386/kernel/acpi/* gets
> built even if CONFIG_ACPI=n (!)
> 
> So the code will actualy compile and link OK if we do:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
> extern void check_acpi_pci(void);
> #else
> static inline void check_acpi_pci(void) { }
> #endif
> 
> But we'd need the acpi guys to tell us what's actually intended here,
> please.  Does it make sense to be calling this function in a non-ACPI
> kernel?

yes, maybe it needs to be split into two parts, one
generic and the other acpi related ...

> erk, your patch was against include/asm/... 
> - please don't do that - 
> it doesn't work very well if the patch receiver isn't using a
> setup-for-i386 tree.

oops, sorry, I should know that, but I just forgot
about that ... will try to remember next time ...

best,
Herbert