On 8/19/24 1:57 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 8/14/24 12:27 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
Wire up OF support for SSAM drivers, to use with Surface Laptop 7 and
other Qualcomm-based devices.
Patch 3 references compatible strings introduced in [1]
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20240809-topic-sl7-v1-1-2090433d8dfc@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <quic_kdybcio@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for your patch-series, I've applied the series to my
review-hans branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans
I did notice the following compiler warning when test building:
drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c:278:36: warning: ‘ssam_node_group_sl7’ defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
278 | static const struct software_node *ssam_node_group_sl7[] = {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One way to fix this would be add #ifdef CONFIG_OF around the definition
of ssam_node_group_sl7, but then future devicetree based surface devices
would need more #ifdef-s so instead I've solved it by squashing in this fix:
diff --git a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
index 495cb4300617..ac96e883cb57 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
@@ -415,14 +415,12 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id ssam_platform_hub_acpi_match[] = {
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, ssam_platform_hub_acpi_match);
-#ifdef CONFIG_OF
-static const struct of_device_id ssam_platform_hub_of_match[] = {
+static const struct of_device_id ssam_platform_hub_of_match[] __maybe_unused = {
/* Surface Laptop 7 */
{ .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", (void *)ssam_node_group_sl7 },
{ .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", (void *)ssam_node_group_sl7 },
{ },
};
-#endif
static int ssam_platform_hub_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be
added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually
will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next
merge-window.
I agree with Konrad, this looks like the best way to address this.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Max
