[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=fQbr0jO_83zsaf13nPvfm8z2HxjxcKPft5MLos+3G2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2025 14:42:35 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org>
Cc: Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>, Deepak Khatri <lorforlinux@...gleboard.org>,
Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@...gleboard.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] rust: Add abstractions for applying devicetree overlays
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 7:58 AM Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org> wrote:
>
> The kernel header currently seems to provide blank implementations of
> these methods when `CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY` is not enabled. But I am not sure
> what is rust-for-linux policy here.
In general, if a kernel feature/API has stubs that do nothing when not
configured, i.e. the API is always present (typically to simplify
callers), then it is likely the Rust side should also be available
unconditionally for similar reasons. We had a similar discussion
around debugfs recently.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists