From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754531AbaBRJAF (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:00:05 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:41037 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754057AbaBRJAD (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:00:03 -0500 Message-ID: <5303210D.7050107@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:59:57 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ACPI / idle: Make idle_boot_override depend on x86 and ia64 References: <1391865018-3446-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1391865018-3446-2-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <2759379.7ZoXxYUg14@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <2759379.7ZoXxYUg14@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2014-2-18 9:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, February 08, 2014 09:10:16 PM Hanjun Guo wrote: >> idle_boot_override depends on x86 and ia64 now, and we can not >> foresee it will be used on ARM or ARM64,so move the code into >> CONFIG_X86 and CONFIG_IA64 #ifdefs to make processor_core.c >> can be compiled on ARM64. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >> --- >> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c >> index 46583d7..01b2656 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c >> @@ -19,24 +19,6 @@ >> #define _COMPONENT ACPI_PROCESSOR_COMPONENT >> ACPI_MODULE_NAME("processor_core"); >> >> -static int __init set_no_mwait(const struct dmi_system_id *id) >> -{ >> - printk(KERN_NOTICE PREFIX "%s detected - " >> - "disabling mwait for CPU C-states\n", id->ident); >> - boot_option_idle_override = IDLE_NOMWAIT; >> - return 0; >> -} >> - >> -static struct dmi_system_id processor_idle_dmi_table[] __initdata = { >> - { >> - set_no_mwait, "Extensa 5220", { >> - DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"), >> - DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Acer"), >> - DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "0100"), >> - DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "Columbia") }, NULL}, >> - {}, >> -}; >> - >> static int map_lapic_id(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry, >> u32 acpi_id, int *apic_id) >> { >> @@ -379,13 +361,35 @@ early_init_pdc(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl, void *context, void **rv) >> return AE_OK; >> } >> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_IA64) >> +static int __init set_no_mwait(const struct dmi_system_id *id) >> +{ >> + printk(KERN_NOTICE PREFIX "%s detected - " >> + "disabling mwait for CPU C-states\n", id->ident); >> + boot_option_idle_override = IDLE_NOMWAIT; >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static struct dmi_system_id processor_idle_dmi_table[] __initdata = { >> + { >> + set_no_mwait, "Extensa 5220", { >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR, "Phoenix Technologies LTD"), >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Acer"), >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "0100"), >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "Columbia") }, NULL}, >> + {}, >> +}; >> +#endif >> + >> void __init acpi_early_processor_set_pdc(void) >> { >> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_IA64) >> /* >> * Check whether the system is DMI table. If yes, OSPM >> * should not use mwait for CPU-states. >> */ >> dmi_check_system(processor_idle_dmi_table); >> +#endif > > Please define processor_dmi_check() under the #if above and an empty static > inline counterpart of it for the case when the #if condition is not satisfied. > Then just call processor_dmi_check() here without the #if block in the body > of the function. > > There is a general rule to avoid preprocessor directives in function bodies. Ok,will update soon, thanks for the comments. Thanks Hanjun