[PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: Availability of psci_smp_available depends on CONFIG_SMP

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:43:33AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2015-10-06 16:18:58 [+0100], Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:11:24AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:39:43AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > Ensure that we can use psci_smp_available without checking for
> > > > CONFIG_SMP first.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/include/asm/psci.h | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/psci.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/psci.h
> > > > index 68ee3ce..ff956f4 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/psci.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/psci.h
> > > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> > > >  
> > > >  extern struct smp_operations psci_smp_ops;
> > > >  
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_PSCI
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_PSCI) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> > > >  bool psci_smp_available(void);
> > > >  #else
> > > >  static inline bool psci_smp_available(void) { return false; }
> > 
> > Sure, I'm fine with this patch in isolation, I just didn't (don't) fully
> > grok what the series is trying to achieve.
> 
> Will, do you want this patch re-sent or do you just need some time to pick
> it up?

I wasn't planning to pick this one up as I assumed you'd be taking it
via arm-soc along with the second patch that depends on it. I just
stopped moaning about not understanding it :)

Will