Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: fix intel_mid_pci.c build error when ACPI is not enabled

[Randy Dunlap]

On 8/13/20 1:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:31 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 8/13/2020 12:58 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Fix build error when CONFIG_ACPI is not set/enabled by adding
>>> the header file <asm/acpi.h> which contains a stub for the function
>>> in the build error.
>>>
>>> ../arch/x86/pci/intel_mid_pci.c: In function ‘intel_mid_pci_init’:
>>> ../arch/x86/pci/intel_mid_pci.c:303:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘acpi_noirq_set’; did you mean ‘acpi_irq_get’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>    acpi_noirq_set();
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks!

also:
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@xxxxxxxxxx>

> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ---
>>> Found in linux-next, but applies to/exists in mainline also.
>>>
>>> Alternative.1: X86_INTEL_MID depends on ACPI
>>> Alternative.2: drop X86_INTEL_MID support
>>
>> at this point I'd suggest Alternative 2; the products that needed that (past tense, that technology
>> is no longer need for any newer products) never shipped in any form where a 4.x or 5.x kernel could
>> work, and they are also all locked down...
> 
> This is not true. We have Intel Edison which runs nicely on vanilla
> (not everything, some is still requiring a couple of patches, but most
> of it works out-of-the-box).
> 
> And for the record, I have been working on removing quite a pile of
> code (~13kLOCs to the date IIRC) in MID area. Just need some time to
> fix Edison watchdog for that.


I didn't see a consensus on this patch, although Andy says it's still needed,
so it shouldn't be removed (yet). Maybe his big removal patch can remove it
later. For now can we just fix the build error?


-- 
~Randy