[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqHBWtDioepsJuNHEa6ckwtuAOKBLx+LZEZctADTP--3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:02:16 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Nikunj Kela <nkela@...cinc.com>,
Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/13] cpufreq: scmi: Drop redundant ifdef in scmi_cpufreq_probe()
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 13:14, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 01:26:27PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > We have stubs for devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(), so there should be no need
> > to protect this with the '#ifdef CONFIG_COMMON_CLK'. Let's drop it to clean
> > up the code a bit.
> >
>
> No exactly. The stub is under !CONFIG_OF but we need it for !CONFIG_COMMON_CLK.
> The original build issue reported for which I add this was CONFIG_OF=y &&
> CONFIG_COMMON_CLK=n.
>
> It looks like it is still valid combo though I don't have a handy randconfig
> to present to you. I prefer to drop this for now if that is OK with you.
Sure, it's perfectly fine to drop it. It's just a thing I stumbled
over that isn't really needed in the $subject series!
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists