[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0779827f-c51c-4407-8544-c87ca6d76500@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:57:38 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regmap I3C support
On 11/19/24 11:30, Frank Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:41:05AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 11/19/24 09:46, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:35:04PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/24 09:26, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Right, so the fact that I3C depends on I2C deals with a lot of the
>>>>> problems that plague the I2C/SPI combination. Ugh. I guess the helper
>>>>> should be OK and there's not much doing for I2C/SPI.
>>>
>>>> It looks like we can use
>>>
>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGMAP_I3C)) {
>>>> regmap = devm_regmap_init_i3c(i3cdev, &tmp108_regmap_config);
>>>> if (IS_ERR(regmap))
>>>> return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(regmap),
>>>> "Failed to register i3c regmap\n");
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>
>>>> even if a stub function is not available as long as there is an external
>>>> declaration.
>>>
>>>> I don't really like it, but it turns out that this kind of code is already used
>>>> elsewhere in the kernel. It looks like dead code elimination can now assumed
>>>> to be available when building kernel code. We live and learn.
>>>
>>> Ah, that solves that problem then I guess?
>>
>>
>> Yes. It actually goes a step further - the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGMAP_I3C)) in the
>> probe function isn't needed either because the entire i3c probe function is
>> optimized away if CONFIG_I3C=n.
>>
>> I'll send a patch dropping the #ifdef in the tmp108 driver after the commit
>> window closes.
>
> Already tried this at v3
> https://lore.kernel.org/imx/7bdd2db8-41c8-43d8-ae73-84a221d2d004@roeck-us.net/
>
Yes, I know. Sorry for that. We live and learn. I didn't think this works,
but it does.
> but I am not sure if it is good on rely on the compiler. Maybe some option
> like some debug option or -O0 cause problem.
>
Yes, I thought so too, but it turns out that the kernel doesn't build anymore
with -O0 anyway, and other code already _does_ depend on dead code elimination.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists