Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:29:02 +0530 | From | Tushar Behera <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: Fix compilation error when CONFIG_PWM is not defined |
| |
On 09/11/2012 08:18 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:14:15PM +0530, Tushar Behera wrote: >> Add dummy implemention of public symbols for compilation-safe inclusion >> of include/linux/pwm.h file when CONFIG_PWM is not defined. >> >> While at it, also reorganize the file. >> >> Reported-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org> >> --- >> Changes since v1: >> * Incorporated Thierry's suggestions regarding adding dummy function >> implemention for all global functions >> * Reorganized header file to have structure definitions first and then the >> function definitions. >> >> include/linux/pwm.h | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >> 1 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h >> index 21d076c..f1e685b 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h >> @@ -6,32 +6,6 @@ >> struct pwm_device; >> struct seq_file; >> >> -/* >> - * pwm_request - request a PWM device >> - */ >> -struct pwm_device *pwm_request(int pwm_id, const char *label); >> - >> -/* >> - * pwm_free - free a PWM device >> - */ >> -void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> - >> -/* >> - * pwm_config - change a PWM device configuration >> - */ >> -int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns); >> - >> -/* >> - * pwm_enable - start a PWM output toggling >> - */ >> -int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> - >> -/* >> - * pwm_disable - stop a PWM output toggling >> - */ >> -void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> - >> -#ifdef CONFIG_PWM >> struct pwm_chip; >> >> enum { >> @@ -113,18 +87,6 @@ struct pwm_chip { >> unsigned int of_pwm_n_cells; >> }; >> >> -int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data); >> -void *pwm_get_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> - >> -int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip); >> -int pwmchip_remove(struct pwm_chip *chip); >> -struct pwm_device *pwm_request_from_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip, >> - unsigned int index, >> - const char *label); >> - >> -struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *consumer); >> -void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> - >> struct pwm_lookup { >> struct list_head list; >> const char *provider; >> @@ -141,8 +103,105 @@ struct pwm_lookup { >> .con_id = _con_id, \ >> } >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PWM >> +/* >> + * pwm_request - request a PWM device >> + */ >> +struct pwm_device *pwm_request(int pwm_id, const char *label); >> + >> +/* >> + * pwm_free - free a PWM device >> + */ >> +void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> + >> +/* >> + * pwm_config - change a PWM device configuration >> + */ >> +int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns); >> + >> +/* >> + * pwm_enable - start a PWM output toggling >> + */ >> +int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm); >> + >> +/* >> + * pwm_disable - stop a PWM output toggling >> + */ >> +void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm); > > The legacy functions probably need to be declared unconditionally > because they are also available if HAVE_PWM is defined. Or rather than > unconditionally they should probably be protected by something like: > > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_PWM) > ... > #else > dummies go here > #endif > > In that case it may be worth splitting this into two #if blocks, one for > the legacy API and one for the new stuff, maybe even keeping the file > layout to reduce the patch size. >
Let me repost this series with two #if blocks as suggested by you.
> Alternatively we could postpone this patch a bit until HAVE_PWM can be > removed. I've posted patches that convert all remaining legacy > implementations and except for Unicore32 it looks like we may be able to > get all of them into 3.7. > > In the meantime you could solve the problem on your end, as I mentioned, > by selecting PWM from the board's Kconfig. If enough people think this
Yeah, sure.
> needs to be done now I may just be persuaded to accept a patch like this > and remove the extra check for HAVE_PWM along with HAVE_PWM when that > happens. > > Thierry >
-- Tushar Behera
| |