On 2 October 2013 20:43, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:13:04PM +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> Hi Guenter, >> >> On 2 October 2013 02:18, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:42:51PM -0000, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> >> The data structure of_match_ptr() protects is always compiled in. >> >> Hence of_match_ptr() is not needed. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > >> > Hi Sachin, >> > >> > I understand that the driver doesn't currently support to be built as module, >> > so of_match_ptr() is not really necessary. But unless I am missing something, >> > here isn't anything wrong with it either, not does it hurt to have it in place. >> > >> > So what is the benefit of this series ? >> >> of_match_ptr() is a macro used to avoid undefined reference error if >> CONFIG_OF is used to selectively compile in or out the >> data structure. It is defined as follows: >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >> #define of_match_ptr(ptr) ptr >> #else >> #define of_match_ptr(ptr) NULL >> #endif >> >> In the case of this series, none of the drivers use CONFIG_OF macro to >> compile out the data structure (i.e., the data structure is always >> defined). >> Hence the use of of_match_ptr() does not make any sense. Thus removing >> it to make the code look simpler for readability. >> >> Hope this clarifies. > > Ok, I'll accept that. > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks Guenter. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
