[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <56C520A7.40201@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:38:47 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
Cc: Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: s2mps11: Simplify expression used in
BUILD_BUG_ON
On 18.02.2016 10:37, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>> Following BUILD_BUG_ON using a variable fails for some of the compilers
>> and optimization levels (reported for gcc 4.9):
>> var = ARRAY_SIZE(s2mps15_regulators);
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(S2MPS_REGULATOR_MAX < var);
>> Fix this by using ARRAY_SIZE directly.
>>
>> Additionally add missing BUILD_BUG_ON check for S2MPS15 device (the
>> check ensures that internal arrays are big enough to hold data for all
>> of regulators on all devices).
>>
>> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> case S2MPS11X:
>> s2mps11->rdev_num = ARRAY_SIZE(s2mps11_regulators);
>
> Why don't we remove rdev_num at all? It's not used that much
> other than in the probe function.
Remove from probe? It is used in probe and removal would make the code
more complicated than it should be.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists