All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: remove unnecessary CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:34:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcqPh4fWhdLYaETmgh0jvS_m9vzXgppgZX2nE8avSGymA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201030142242.r4jqhvtzh7hnahuv@Rk>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 4:23 PM Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 07:04:44PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:27 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:

...

> >There are pros and cons of each approach, but not above.
> >
> Can you elaborate on the pros and cons of each approach? There's
> convincing reason to prefer __maybe_unused over CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> according to Arnd Bergmann [1],

First what comes to my mind. Perhaps more, but somebody else may
extend / correct below.

ifdeffery (pros):
 - compiler doesn't need even to look at that code

ifdeffery (cons):
 - if depends on configuration and thus harder to test coverage

__maybe_unused (pros):
 - removes ugly ifdeffery in the code, increases readability

__maybe_unused (cons):
 - it's a burden for compiler (increasing compilation time) and to
linker (to drop the section)


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-30 14:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-29 10:06 [PATCH 1/9] mfd: maxim: remove unnecessary CONFIG_PM_SLEEP Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 2/9] mfd: motorola-cpcap: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 3/9] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 11:00   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-29 14:29     ` Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 15:27       ` Lee Jones
2020-10-29 17:04         ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-30 14:22           ` Coiby Xu
2020-10-30 14:34             ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2020-11-02  8:39           ` Lee Jones
2020-11-02 10:26             ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-02 10:51               ` Lee Jones
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 4/9] mfd: max77620: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 5/9] mfd: stpmic1: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 6/9] mfd: stmfx: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06   ` Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 22:36   ` kernel test robot
2020-10-29 22:36     ` kernel test robot
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 7/9] mfd: sec: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 8/9] mfd: max14577: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 10:06 ` [PATCH 9/9] mfd: sprd-sc27xx-spi: " Coiby Xu
2020-10-30  4:02   ` Chunyan Zhang
2020-10-30 14:53     ` Coiby Xu
2020-10-29 18:32 ` [PATCH 1/9] mfd: maxim: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-10-30 15:01   ` Coiby Xu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAHp75VcqPh4fWhdLYaETmgh0jvS_m9vzXgppgZX2nE8avSGymA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
    --cc=andy@kernel.org \
    --cc=coiby.xu@gmail.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.