From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753294Ab3CCMHw (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:07:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]:32782 "EHLO mail-pb0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753109Ab3CCMHt (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:07:49 -0500 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: em: Add Device Tree support To: Simon Horman , Magnus Damm Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20130228051122.GA12312@verge.net.au> References: <20130226132623.18365.36583.sendpatchset@w520> <20130226224106.GC20670@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20130228051122.GA12312@verge.net.au> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:07:32 +0000 Message-Id: <20130302200732.E18BB3E206B@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:11:23 +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 07:13:46PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > Thanks for your feedback! > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > > wrote: > > > Hi Magnus, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:26:23PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > >> From: Magnus Damm > > >> > > >> Update the Emma Mobile GPIO driver to add DT support. > > >> > > > > > > ... > > > > > >> @@ -366,15 +387,33 @@ static int em_gio_remove(struct platform > > >> return 0; > > >> } > > >> > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF here? No need to have extra aliases in modules if OF > > > support is not enabled (or is entire ARM arch now enables device tree?). > > > > > >> +static const struct of_device_id em_gio_dt_ids[] = { > > >> + { .compatible = "renesas,em-gio", }, > > >> + {}, > > >> +}; > > >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, em_gio_dt_ids); > > >> + > > > > I suppose we could sprinkle a couple of #ifdefs across the code, but I > > have to say that I'm not that fond of #ifdefs in general. So if it was > > up to me only then I would aim at having exactly zero #ifdefs in my > > drivers at the expense of slightly larger binaries in some cases. > > My take on this is as follows (if anyone cares): > > * The driver in question is currently only useful in conjunction with > the Emev2 SoC and the kzm9g board which uses that SoC. The current > (and to date only) practice when booting that board and thus SoC > with merged upstream code is to do so using DT. > > * The inclusion of the code above does not appear to cause build-time > breakage even if CONFIG_OF is not set. > > So it seems to me that it is reasonable to leave the code as is > without being guarded by an #ifdef. I completely agree. Applied for v3.10 g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd.