Re: pciehp borkage.

Greg KH
2006-06-27T16:12:17Z

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 07:19:37AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On 6/26/06, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >> My head hurts..
> >>
> >> drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig ..
> >>
> >> config HOTPLUG_PCI_PCIE
> >> tristate "PCI Express Hotplug driver"
> >> depends on HOTPLUG_PCI && PCIEPORTBUS && (BROKEN || ACPI)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> but drivers/pci/hotplug/Makefile has..
> >>
> >> pciehp-objs := pciehp_core.o \
> >> pciehp_ctrl.o \
> >> pciehp_pci.o \
> >> pciehp_hpc.o
> >>
> >> So it gets built regardless of the option, which leaves ppc (among
> >others)
> >> totally busted..
> >
> >Yes, this driver does have issues on ppc, see the archives for Anton
> >trying to fix it up to get it to build. But as ppc currently doesn't
> >_have_ pci express hotplug hardware it really doesn't matter much :)
> >
> >> In file included from include/acpi/platform/acenv.h:140,
> >> from include/acpi/acpi.h:54,
> >> from drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c:41:
> >> include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h:59:22: error: asm/acpi.h: No such file
> >or directory
> >> In file included from include/acpi/acpi.h:55,
> >> from drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c:41:
> >> include/acpi/actypes.h:129: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or
> >'__attribute__' before 'UINT64'
> >> include/acpi/actypes.h:130: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or
> >'__attribute__' before 'INT64'
> >> make[3]: *** [drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.o] Error 1
> >> make[2]: *** [drivers/pci/hotplug] Error 2
> >> make[1]: *** [drivers/pci] Error 2
> >>
> >>
> >> Should that Makefile be more along the lines of..
> >>
> >> pciehp-$(CONFIG_PCI_PCIE) := pciehp_core.o \
> >> pciehp_ctrl.o \
> >> pciehp_pci.o \
> >> pciehp_hpc.o
> >>
> >> perhaps ?
> >
> >No, look up a bit higher:
> > obj-$(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_PCI_PCIE) += pciehp.o
> >
> >which will build pciehp or not. Just don't enable the option for now
> >on ppc please. Until people sanitize the ACPI headers for non-acpi
> >arches (which is currently underway...)
>
> Would it be sane to make the Kconfig refuse to enable the option for
> archs that this is known to be broken on?

Sure, no objection from me there.

thanks,

greg k-h