On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:08 PM Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/13/20 1:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:31 PM Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On 8/13/2020 12:58 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > > Thanks! > > also: > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Jacob Pan <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Len Brown <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected] > >>> --- > >>> 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?
Yeah I think it makes sense to land it. Doesn't get in the way of a future removal and fixes a build error in the meantime. Jesse
