Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: core: helper function to detect slave mode | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:01:22 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 03:24 +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 01/07/2017 02:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> > > wrote: > > > On 01/07/2017 12:45 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > + } > > > > > > + } else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) && > > > > > > ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) { > > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "ACPI slave is not supported > > > > > > yet\n"); > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > If so, then it might be better to drop else-if stub for now. > > > > > > > > Please, don't. > > > > > > > > > > Why do you ask for this stub to be added? > > > > 1. Exactly the reason you asked above. Here is the code which has > > built differently on different platforms. x86 usually is not using > > CONFIG_OF, ARM doesn't ACPI (versus ARM64). Check GPIO library for > > existing examples. > > From the context by the stub I mean dev_dbg() in > i2c_slave_mode_detect() > function, I don't see a connection to GPIO library, please clarify.
I agree that is not good proof for using IS_ENABLED/IS_BUILTIN macro.
> > 2. We might add that support later, but here is again, just no-op. > > > > So, what is your strong argument here against that? > > When the support is ready for ACPI case, you'll remove the added > dev_dbg(), and I don't see a good point by adding it temporarily.
It would remind me to look at it at some point.
> What is wrong with the approach of adding the ACPI case handling > branch when it is ready and remove any kind of stubs right now?
I will not object. Here is maintainer, let him speak.
> On ACPI platforms the function returns 'false' always, will the > function work correctly (= corresponding to its description) as is?
Yes.
-- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
| |