[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117160112.GI1869941@dell>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:01:12 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
bgolaszewski@...libre.com, andrew@...id.au, albeu@...e.fr,
f.fainelli@...il.com, sbranden@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com, hoan@...amperecomputing.com,
fancer.lancer@...il.com, orsonzhai@...il.com,
baolin.wang7@...il.com, zhang.lyra@...il.com, vz@...ia.com,
marek.behun@....cz, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
linux-imx@....com, grygorii.strashko@...com, ssantosh@...nel.org,
khilman@...nel.org, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: use of_match_ptr() and ACPI_PTR() macros
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 04:43:40PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> > The of_match_ptr(foo) macro evaluates to foo, only if
> > CONFIG_OF is set, otherwise to NULL. Same does ACPI_PTR with
> > CONFIG_ACPI. That's very helpful for drivers that can be used
> > with or without oftree / acpi.
> >
> > Even though most of the drivers touched here probably don't
> > actually need that, it's also nice for consistency to make it
> > the de-facto standard and change all drivers to use the
> > of_match_ptr() and ACPI_PTR() macros.
> >
> > A nice side effect: in some situations, when compiled w/o
> > CONFIG_OF/CONFIG_ACPI, the corresponding match tables could
> > automatically become unreferenced and optimized-away by the
> > compiler, w/o explicitly cluttering the code w/ ifdef's.
>
> Isn't this going to cause a lot of "defined but unused" warnings when
> built without OF support, for example?
Yes, it will.
It also looks like there are some whitespace changes in the patch,
unless of course that's just Git playing tricks!
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists