Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754128AbbHEW4D (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:56:03 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:45467 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753175AbbHEWz7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:55:59 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: David Daney Cc: David Daney , Tomasz Nowicki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Robert Richter , David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi, property: Export acpi_dev_prop_read_single call. Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:23:06 +0200 Message-ID: <1501387.bDOHyjjWvt@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <55C26EB9.7010504@gmail.com> References: <1438729319-9146-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <55C24737.8000309@caviumnetworks.com> <55C26EB9.7010504@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2072 Lines: 57 On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote: > On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote: > > On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > >> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote: > >>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki > >>>> > >>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules: > >>>> > >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko] > >>>> undefined! > >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" > >>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined! > >>> > >>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function > >>> directly, although they aren't supposed to? > >>> > >>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they > >>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already. > >>> > >>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API > >>> instead? > >>> > >> Yes, you are right. We should use: > >> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char > >> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval); > >> > > > > Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested > > approach and see how it goes... > > > > Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work. > > We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via > acpi_dev_get_property_reference(), Why? > so there is no struct device * > available for a call to device_property_read_u64_array(). This looks > like a deficiency in the device_property_* framework, so for the time > being I guess we will call acpi_dev_get_property(), which is exported, > and decode the thing in the driver. Please don't. I'd like to understand what's missing. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/