Hi,
On 4/22/24 1:33 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:24 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 4/22/24 9:55 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:46:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede kirjoitti:
>
> ...
>
>>> I have briefly looked into this and I like this, except the part of the big
>>> function being in the header. Why? Why can't it be in a C-file?
>>>
>>> Note, 3 users justify very well to me that shared code, should be shared in
>>> binary as well. (I.o.w. you may argue that IRL there will be no more than
>>> one of such device connected, but in case of DIY and prototyping it might
>>> still be the use case.)
>>
>> It is only 1 function and it is not that big. IMHO the static inline
>> in a header solution here is much better then making this a separate .ko
>> file with all the associated overhead.
>
> Look how the i8042 RTC header became a disaster. :-)
> Nevertheless, this can be part of the IIO core for the ACPI enabled
> kernels. Which eliminates a need for a separate module.
Putting this in the IIO core, with an iio-prefix, so say something like:
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
bool iio_read_acpi_mount_matrix(struct device *dev, struct iio_mount_matrix *matrix, const char *method_name);
#else
static inline bool
iio_read_acpi_mount_matrix(struct device *dev, struct iio_mount_matrix *matrix, const char *method_name)
{
return false;
}
in include/linux/iio/iio.h ?
works for me and that also avoids Jonathan's worry about using an acpi_
prefix in iio code.
Jonathan how does that sound to you ?
Regards,
Hans
