Re: [PATCH] Input: goodix - Fix compilation when ACPI support is disabled

[Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>]

On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 15:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 3/25/20 3:02 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 14:55 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > We could do something like that, but TBH I'm not a fan of that
> > > 
> > > adding extra wrappers makes it harder to see what the code is
> > > 
> > > actually doing.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I understand your dislike for the extra braces I added and
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with fixing that by adding __maybe_unused to the
> > > 
> > > variable declarations at the top. I don't really see what
> > > 
> > > the problem with the #ifdef-s is given how clean they are,
> > > 
> > > with the braces thing fixed by using __maybe_unused things
> > > 
> > > would look like e.g. this:
> > 
> > It's not only the fact that there's extra #ifdef's, it's that the
> > ifdef's need to be just "that". It's not "#ifdef FOO", it's "#if
> > defined CONFIG_X86 && defined CONFIG_ACPI".
> 
> If that is the problem I would prefer adding:
> 
> /* Our special handling for GPIO accesses through ACPI is x86
> specific */
> #if defined CONFIG_X86 && defined CONFIG_ACPI
> #define ACPI_GPIO_SUPPORT
> #endif
> 
> And use:
> 
> #ifdef ACPI_GPIO_SUPPORT
> 
> Elsewhere.
> 
> Would that work for you?

That's slightly better, but I would still have preferred stubbing out
those ACPI calls directly. Right now, the fact that we expect half of
the commands to be stubbed out and the other half to not be called is
just weird.