[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25e9a9b6-4d81-4731-98fa-add40ccd4aab@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 16:34:11 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] Add a bare-minimum Regulator abstraction
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:28:37PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> Is it ok for the abstraction to only be built when CONFIG_REGULATOR=y? This
> means that any Rust drivers using it have to depend on CONFIG_REGULATOR too.
> I thought this was acceptable, but apparently that is not the case? See this
> comment from Rob Herring [0].
The regulator API stubs itself out when disabled, but given that this is
just wrappers it's not clear what the tasteful thing would be here - it
should do the right thing because it will itself be built in terms of
the C stubs. I don't know if Rust can sensibly stub things, or if
there's much percentage in that for a thin wrapper which does basically
nothing itself.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists