On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:49:44 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ACPI_PTR() is more harmful than helpful. For example, in this case > if CONFIG_ACPI=n, the ID table left unused and code is obfuscated > by ifdeffery. > > Drop anti-pattern of ACPI_PTR() use. Longer term I wonder if we should just make ACPI_PTR() work the same way as pm_ptr() now does so that the visibility is maintained and we don't need the ifdef magic. I'm sure there is someone out there somewhere who actually cares about the minor costs of all these tables for their non ACPI platform and doing something like that might make everyone happier. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Applied. > --- > drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c > index 9dfc625100b6..fc09ee6bb174 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c > @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ > * https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/adc124s021.pdf > */ > > -#include <linux/acpi.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/spi/spi.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > @@ -201,19 +200,17 @@ static const struct spi_device_id adc128_id[] = { > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, adc128_id); > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > static const struct acpi_device_id adc128_acpi_match[] = { > { "AANT1280", (kernel_ulong_t)&adc128_config[2] }, > { } > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, adc128_acpi_match); > -#endif > > static struct spi_driver adc128_driver = { > .driver = { > .name = "adc128s052", > .of_match_table = adc128_of_match, > - .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(adc128_acpi_match), > + .acpi_match_table = adc128_acpi_match, > }, > .probe = adc128_probe, > .id_table = adc128_id,
