On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 06:20:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:32 PM Eduardo Valentin <eduval@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 11:25:39AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 AM Eduardo Valentin <eduval@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Well, yes, but the point is you would be switching from a simple AND (&) operation
> > to a division...
> >
> > I am keeping the power of 2 dep so that we can keep this with a simple &.
>
> Works for me.
>
> > > > > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match),
> > > > >
> > > > > Wouldn't compiler warn you due to unused data?
> > > > > Perhaps drop of_match_ptr() for good...
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what you meant here. I dont see any compiler warning.
> > > > Also, of_match_ptr seams to be well spread in the kernel.
> > >
> > > If this will be compiled with CONFIG_OF=n...
> >
> > I see.. I obviously did not test with that config..
> >
> > > Though I didn't check all dependencies to see if it even possible. In
> > > any case of_match_ptr() is redundant in both cases here.
> > > Either you need to protect i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match with #ifdef
> > > CONFIG_OF, or drop the macro use.
> >
> > I will wrap it into CONFIG_OF..
>
> Would be this expected to work in the case of CONFIG_OF=n?
> If no, why to introduce ugly #ifdef:s and additional macros?
I do hate those too...
> Wouldn't be better to have
> depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
Well, technically, the original author had a case for using this
without CONFIG_OF. That is why I did not force here to be a strong
dependency on CONFIG_OF. So, I guess in this case the driver will
work properly in both cases if we:
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+static const struct of_device_id i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = "i2c-slave-mqueue",
+ },
+ { /* sentinel */ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match);
+#endif
+
+static struct i2c_driver i2c_slave_mqueue_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "i2c-slave-mqueue",
+ .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match),
+ },
+ .probe = i2c_slave_mqueue_probe,
+ .remove = i2c_slave_mqueue_remove,
+ .id_table = i2c_slave_mqueue_id,
+};
The above is a well stablish pattern across the drivers.
> ?
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
--
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin
