On 12-Jan-17 17:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 03:24 +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> On 01/07/2017 02:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/2017 12:45 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + } else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) &&
>>>>>>> ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) {
>>>>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "ACPI slave is not supported
>>>>>>> yet\n");
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, then it might be better to drop else-if stub for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you ask for this stub to be added?
>>>
>>> 1. Exactly the reason you asked above. Here is the code which has
>>> built differently on different platforms. x86 usually is not using
>>> CONFIG_OF, ARM doesn't ACPI (versus ARM64). Check GPIO library for
>>> existing examples.
>>
>> From the context by the stub I mean dev_dbg() in
>> i2c_slave_mode_detect()
>> function, I don't see a connection to GPIO library, please clarify.
>
> I agree that is not good proof for using IS_ENABLED/IS_BUILTIN macro.
I can prepare a V3 and remove it if that's the decision.
>
>>> 2. We might add that support later, but here is again, just no-op.
>>>
>>> So, what is your strong argument here against that?
>>
>> When the support is ready for ACPI case, you'll remove the added
>> dev_dbg(), and I don't see a good point by adding it temporarily.
>
> It would remind me to look at it at some point.
>
>> What is wrong with the approach of adding the ACPI case handling
>> branch when it is ready and remove any kind of stubs right now?
>
> I will not object. Here is maintainer, let him speak.
>
>> On ACPI platforms the function returns 'false' always, will the
>> function work correctly (= corresponding to its description) as is?
>
> Yes.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
