From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:08:49 +0100
Subject: [Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support
 for probing from ACPI
In-Reply-To: <20140901165853.GJ29327@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1409583961-7466-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1409583961-7466-2-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <2861461.8zNpLC3I2n@wuerfel> <20140901152854.GJ2953@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>
 <20140901165333.GE608@arm.com> <20140901165853.GJ29327@sirena.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5404A821.5020207@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Mark,

On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
>> Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
>
>> 	acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>
>> without any #ifdef's.
>
> There's a stub smsc911x_probe_config_acpi() provided in the non-ACPI
> case, Arnd's suggestion is basically to remove the stub.
>

I think Catalin is referring to ACPI_HANDLE used without any #ifdefs

Catalin, few macros like ACPI_HANDLE and ACPI_PTR are defined in
include/linux/acpi.h even when CONFIG_ACPI is not set mainly to
avoid #ifdef's around simple assignments like the above one and one
in platform_driver.acpi_match_table

Regards,
Sudeep