[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUAKXulF43OtSAWN@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:56:14 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] pinctrl: intel: Provide Intel pin control wide
PM ops structure
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 07:43:50PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 19:41:12 +0000
> Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
...
> Actually looking at usecase, why isn't the absence of an EXPORT in
> the !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP path not a problem for bisection of this series given
> you haven't yet protected the users?
I'm not sure I got the issue you are trying to point out.
Between first and last patches the main driver exports two things: the PM ops
functions, which are _always_ been exported and PM ops structure, which is
exported only when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y. Every converted user has pm_sleep_ptr()
guard added so it shouldn't be a problem. What exactly did I miss?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists