Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] gpiolib: fix linker errors when GPIOLIB is disabled

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 11:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:40:18AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 09:14, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >> 
> >> All of these should already prevent the link failure through
> >> a Kconfig 'depends on GPIOLIB' for the driver, or 'select GPIOLIB'
> >> for the platform code. I checked all of the above and they seem fine.
> >> If anything else calls the function, I'd add the same dependency
> >> there.
> >
> > So, you think it's worth to send a few separate fixes as adding that
> > dependency? But doesn't it feel like a papering over the issue with
> > that APIs used in some of the drivers in the first place?
> 
> If there are drivers that use the interfaces but shouldn't then
> fixing those drivers is clearly better than adding a dependency,
> but we can decide that when someone sends a patch.
> 
> Adding a stub helper that can never be used legitimately
> but turns a build time error into a run time warning seems
> counterproductive to me, as the CI systems are no longer
> able to report these automatically.

What about adding ifdeffery in their code instead with a FIXME comment? So
we will know that it's ugly and needs to be solved better sooner than later.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko