From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com>
Cc: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
od@zcrc.me,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: ingenic: Only support SoCs enabled in config
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:04:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a37rQz6ihEJBZNkOARJXJE7U9TX7pCUhyQjQn6fJw+jUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFr9PX=EgQSXeATLn++DSHkkQar35rpLGh978J5Lnw9jS8XMrw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:13 AM Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and others,
>
> Sorry to hijack this but I actually want to do something similar to
> this in some other drivers.
> The targets I'm working with have only 64MB of ram so I want to remove
> code wherever possible.
> Is there any reason to do it like this instead of wrapping the whole
> unneeded of_device_id struct in an #ifdef?
> For example there is a rule that the compatible strings have to be
> present even if the driver isn't usable or something?
No, there is no such rule, but adding lots of #ifdef checks in this
file would be much less readable and more error-prone, as you'd
have to make sure the two #ifdef blocks around the structure
match the one for the ID table, and any function that is called
by more than one SoC has the correct combination of A || B || D
checks, and nobody ever gets that right.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
od@zcrc.me,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: ingenic: Only support SoCs enabled in config
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:04:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a37rQz6ihEJBZNkOARJXJE7U9TX7pCUhyQjQn6fJw+jUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFr9PX=EgQSXeATLn++DSHkkQar35rpLGh978J5Lnw9jS8XMrw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:13 AM Daniel Palmer <daniel@0x0f.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and others,
>
> Sorry to hijack this but I actually want to do something similar to
> this in some other drivers.
> The targets I'm working with have only 64MB of ram so I want to remove
> code wherever possible.
> Is there any reason to do it like this instead of wrapping the whole
> unneeded of_device_id struct in an #ifdef?
> For example there is a rule that the compatible strings have to be
> present even if the driver isn't usable or something?
No, there is no such rule, but adding lots of #ifdef checks in this
file would be much less readable and more error-prone, as you'd
have to make sure the two #ifdef blocks around the structure
match the one for the ID table, and any function that is called
by more than one SoC has the correct combination of A || B || D
checks, and nobody ever gets that right.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-09 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-08 16:48 [PATCH 1/2] if_enabled.h: Add IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and IF_ENABLED() macros Paul Cercueil
2020-12-08 16:48 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-08 16:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: ingenic: Only support SoCs enabled in config Paul Cercueil
2020-12-08 16:48 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-09 10:13 ` Daniel Palmer
2020-12-09 10:13 ` Daniel Palmer
2020-12-09 11:04 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2020-12-09 11:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-12-08 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] if_enabled.h: Add IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and IF_ENABLED() macros Randy Dunlap
2020-12-08 17:39 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-08 19:00 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-08 19:00 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-09 8:59 ` Linus Walleij
2020-12-09 8:59 ` Linus Walleij
2020-12-09 11:31 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-09 11:31 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-09 9:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-12-09 9:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-12-09 11:27 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-12-09 11:27 ` Paul Cercueil
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=CAK8P3a37rQz6ihEJBZNkOARJXJE7U9TX7pCUhyQjQn6fJw+jUQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@0x0f.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=od@zcrc.me \
--cc=paul@crapouillou.net \
/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.