Re: [PATCH] Fix pciehp driver on non ACPI systems

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:41:13AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:05:27 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:17:31PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > > 
> > > Wrap some ACPI specific headers. ACPI hasnt taken over the whole world yet.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Index: kernel/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- kernel.orig/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c	2006-04-06 05:01:32.000000000 -0500
> > > +++ kernel/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c	2006-04-06 05:09:48.501122395 -0500
> > > @@ -38,10 +38,14 @@
> > >  
> > >  #include "../pci.h"
> > >  #include "pciehp.h"
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > >  #include <acpi/acpi.h>
> > >  #include <acpi/acpi_bus.h>
> > >  #include <acpi/actypes.h>
> > >  #include <linux/pci-acpi.h>
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Shouldn't the ACPI headers handle it if CONFIG_ACPI is not enabled?  All
> > other header files work that way, and we shouldn't have to add this to
> > the .c files.
> 
> maybe the C file could just #include <linux/acpi.h> ?

Would that solve this issue?  I'm guessing that they are being included
as it needs something in those headers...

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/