[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPC84+k8aot5LyGT@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 19:16:35 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] drm/bridge: panel: Drop CONFIG_OF conditional
around *_of_get_bridge()
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:47:24AM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 09:09:38AM +0100, Biju Das wrote:
...
> > > Drop unnecessary CONFIG_OF conditional around devm_drm_of_get_bridge()
> > > and
> > > drmm_of_get_bridge() as it is guarded with #if..#else blocks in
> > > drm_bridge.h.
> >
> > This will increase the kernel size on non-OF system, to add functions that
> > are not used. I don't think the #ifdef here is problematic.
>
> OK agreed. I guess for NON-OF system it will give build error
> for function redefinition, if that is the case I would like to
> drop this patch.
>
> static inline struct drm_bridge *devm_drm_of_get_bridge()
>
> vs
>
> struct drm_bridge *devm_drm_of_get_bridge()
Yeah, yet another argument in favour of switching to fwnode.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists