On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 07:44:04AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/03/2023 20:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If that's the case then why are you adding maybe unused annotations for
> > half the drivers rather than removing their of_match_ptr() usages?
> > There doesn't seem to be any logic here, it's just randomly making
> > changes as far as I can tell.
> These are not random but depend on whether OF is the only matching
> method or one of few. Although for IIO all of my patches would be
> dropping the of_match_ptr... For some cases in other patchsets I added
> __maybe_unused also because of_match_node(), when the table is not used
> in driver of_match_table.
This logic is both not apparent when looking at the patches and doesn't
move us in any particular direction - I'd expect this stuff to be
written the same way for all drivers, there's no reason for it to vary.
That just adds complication, it's more random obscure rules people have
to learn.
> > The PRP0001 stuff isn't an issue, of_match_ptr() can just be changed to
> > do the right thing for CONFIG_ACPI.
> That's actually interesting idea, kind of obvious so I wonder why it
> wasn't done like this in the first place in 886ca88be6b3 ("ACPI / bus:
> Respect PRP0001 when retrieving device match data"). Maybe not to
> populate OF device ID tables for the ACPI systems which do not care
> about PRP0001?
Or just it didn't occur to anyone at the time.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
