Re: [RFC PATCH v1 09/21] RISC-V: cacheflush: Initialize CBO variables on ACPI systems

Andy Shevchenko
2023-08-04T16:57:01Z

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:52:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:19:27PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:59:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 02:50:34PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 08:56:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:29:04PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:

...

> > > > > > +#include <asm/acpi.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you need this for?
> > > > >
> > > > > > #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> > > > >
> > > > When CONFIG_ACPI is disabled, this include is required to get
> > > > acpi_get_cbo_block_size().
> > >
> > > How is it useful without ACPI being enabled?
> >
> > It is not, as evidenced by the `return -EINVAL;`.
> >
> > > If it's indeed
> > > (in which I do not believe), better to make sure you have it
> > > avaiable independently on CONFIG_ACPI. Otherwise, just put
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI around the call.
> >
> > Let's not litter the code with ifdeffery please where it can be easily
> > avoided.
>
> Including asm/acpi.h looks to me as a "let's avoid it with a hack that it
> is uglier than ifdeffery". Sorry, but ifdeffery for ACPI, with all my full
> agreement with the statement that it's not good, is the correct way to fix
> this.

On the other hand this is an arch code and I see precedents of using the
headers together, alas, it seems not better to me that ugly ifdeffery.

So, I leave it to the respective maintainers to decide.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko