On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 03:25:27PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:10:45PM +0300, Andrew Kanner wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 10:13:54AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > > While you're at it, if you want to try it, you could see if you can > > > improve the situation more by looking at symbol_get() users that remain > > > and seeing if you can instead fix it with proper Kconfig dependency and > > > at build time. Then we can just remove it as well. > > > > > > Luis > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > > Luis, can you give more details of your idea? I re-read it once, then > > came back and still don't understand. > > > > I see that there are ~10 users for symbol_get() currently. Do you want > > to stringify symbol names at build time to completely remove > > symbol_get() from module.h? Correct me if I'm wrong since using of a > > fuction which is not declared anywhere sounds confusing. > > As an example look at the code and see if there's a sensible way to make > some calls built-in instead of part of the module, then the module can > have a kconfig builtin option, that adds to the built-in code which > means you don't need the symbol_get(). > > For some other pieces of code it may require other strategies. An example is FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER which is bool only, and is selected by users. It didn't use symbol_get() before, however its an example of how through Kconfig you can align requirements and define built-in components, even if they do come from a module. Luis
