[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d71e2795-f918-482b-af0e-18376f8ca835@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 20:26:41 -0800
From: Chintan Patel <chintanlike@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
andy@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] fbdev: Guard sysfs interfaces under CONFIG_FB_DEVICE
On 12/9/25 06:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 10:23 AM Helge Deller <deller@....de> wrote:
>> On 12/9/25 08:27, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> This whole series adds a whole lot of ifdef'ery, which I think is the
>> worst approach. It makes the code less readable and leads to two code
>> paths, which may trigger different build errors depending on the config.
>>
>> I'm sure it must be possible to do the same without adding more #ifdefs,
>> e.g. by introducing a function like dev_of_fbinfo(fbinfo) which
>> simply returns NULL for the FB_DEVICE=n case. Then, that value can be tested
>> like
>> if (dev_of_fbinfo(fbinfo))
>> {...do-the-things...}
>> For the FB_DEVICE=n case this will then be optimized out by the compiler,
>> while you still have full compiler syntax checking.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I second you. I am also not a fan of ifdeffery when it can be avoided.
>
Thank you for the review! Will do the change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists