Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:56:32 +0300 | Subject | Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: adc: ad7291: convert to device tree |
| |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:12 PM Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 01:46:21AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 4:53 PM Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com> wrote:
...
> > > + chip->reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(&client->dev, "vref"); > > > + if (!IS_ERR(chip->reg)) { > > > > Why not to go with usual positive conditional? > > I took this pattern from ad7266.c which Lars pointed me to. I agree that > a positive conditional here would probably be more natural. I'll change > that if you'd prefer.
Yes, please do.
...
> > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ad7291_of_match), > > > > No need to use of_match_ptr(). Haven't you got a compiler warning in !OF case? > > Hm, no warning as far as I can see with !OF...
Have you used `make W=1 ...`? With it you should get a warning that table defined but not used.
> but agreed that this > doesn't make much sense as-is. > > Is dropping of_match_ptr() the preferred route here? The driver doesn't > depend on OF, so it seems like keeping of_match_ptr and instead guarding > the ad7291_of_match table with #ifdef CONFIG_OF would be preferred. Of > course, maybe that's not worth it for saving some bytes from the final > image.
You need either both (of_match_ptr() _and_ ugly ifdeffery, and note you will need of.h for that) or none (mod_devicetable.h maybe needed, though).
> Let me know which route would be preferred.
If we would like to use this in non-DT environment, then drop all that OF-specific stuff.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |