On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:59:07AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 11:14:35PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:56:48 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:09:11PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: ... > > > > - .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(pwm_ir_of_match), > > > > + .of_match_table = pwm_ir_of_match, > > > That hunk makes sense even without the Kconfig change. ACPI makes use of > > > .of_match_table, so > > > > > > .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(pwm_ir_of_match), > > > > > > is (almost?) always wrong. > > > > Should we just get rid of this macro altogether then? > > > > (Somehow I have a strange feeling that we already had this > > discussion...) > > Might be. But for me this is only second hand knowledge, too. Maybe > someone of the new recipents in this thread feels competent to comment > here?! Pros of of_match_ptr() / ACPI_PTR(): - saves a few dozens of bytes in the module ID tables - doesn't show ACPI ID for non-ACPI platform or OF ID on non-OF platforms Cons: - prevents from using OF IDs on ACPI platforms - doesn't show ACPI ID for non-ACPI platform or OF ID on non-OF platforms - makes error prone for the compiler to have the variable unused - makes code uglier (I left the second in the both because I find useful to have all supported IDs to be listed even if the system is compiled with OF/ACPI opted-out.) Personally I remove the of_match_ptr()/ACPI_PTR() from drivers that can be used on OF or ACPI platforms, which leaves us only with the drivers we are 100% sure that they won't ever be used on non-OF platforms. BUT, I do not see any sense to have of_match_ptr() that either in use, because the driver in question is 100% for OF platform, or not when it's compile tested, which means it reduces test coverage anyway. All the same for ACPI_PTR(). TL;DR: I don't see any [big] usefulness of keeping those macros. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
