[PATCH] spi: rpc-if: Gaurd .pm assignment with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check

[PATCH] spi: rpc-if: Gaurd .pm assignment with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check

[Lad Prabhakar]

With CONFIG_PM_SLEEP disabled the rpcif_spi_pm_ops variable is still
referenced and thus increasing the size of kernel.

Fix this issue by adding CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check around the .pm
assignment (image size is critical on RZ/A SoC's where the SRAM sizes
range 4~5 MiB).

Fixes: 9584fc95cadc0 ("spi: rpc-if: Remove CONFIG_PM_SLEEP ifdefery")
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Suggested-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-rpc-if.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-rpc-if.c b/drivers/spi/spi-rpc-if.c
index c313dbe6185c..c53138ce0030 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-rpc-if.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-rpc-if.c
@@ -197,7 +197,9 @@ static struct platform_driver rpcif_spi_driver = {
 	.remove	= rpcif_spi_remove,
 	.driver = {
 		.name	= "rpc-if-spi",
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
 		.pm	= &rpcif_spi_pm_ops,
+#endif
 	},
 };
 module_platform_driver(rpcif_spi_driver);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] spi: rpc-if: Gaurd .pm assignment with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:53:29 +0000, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> With CONFIG_PM_SLEEP disabled the rpcif_spi_pm_ops variable is still
> referenced and thus increasing the size of kernel.
> 
> Fix this issue by adding CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check around the .pm
> assignment (image size is critical on RZ/A SoC's where the SRAM sizes
> range 4~5 MiB).

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: rpc-if: Gaurd .pm assignment with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP #ifdef check
      commit: bfeccc6a18de52529ada66ea3afe934004b4b36e

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark