mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<patches@opensource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/28] mfd: arizona: Remove #ifdef guards for PM related functions
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 11:43:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2c5c063b-da58-1f6f-5422-1ada3dabb90a@opensource.cirrus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <T2KAGR.KY35O6CZFRQ83@crapouillou.net>

On 08/08/2022 11:06, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Le lun., août 8 2022 at 10:53:54 +0100, Richard Fitzgerald 
> <rf@opensource.cirrus.com> a écrit :
>> On 07/08/2022 15:52, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>> Only export the arizona_pm_ops if CONFIG_PM is set, but leave the
>>> suspend/resume functions (and related code) outside #ifdef guards.
>>>
>>> If CONFIG_PM is not set, the arizona_pm_ops will be defined as
>>> "static __maybe_unused", and the structure plus all the callbacks will
>>> be automatically dropped by the compiler.
>>>
>>> The advantage is then that these functions are now always compiled
>>> independently of any Kconfig option, and thanks to that bugs and
>>> regressions are easier to catch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
>>> Cc: patches@opensource.cirrus.com
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
>>>   drivers/mfd/arizona-i2c.c  |  2 +-
>>>   drivers/mfd/arizona-spi.c  |  2 +-
>>>   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c b/drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c
>>> index cbf1dd90b70d..c1acc9521f83 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c
>>> @@ -480,7 +480,6 @@ static int wm5102_clear_write_sequencer(struct 
>>> arizona *arizona)
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   \x7f-#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>>>   static int arizona_isolate_dcvdd(struct arizona *arizona)
>>
>> __maybe_unused?
> 
> No need. The symbols are always referenced.
> 
>>>   {
>>>       int ret;
>>> @@ -742,9 +741,7 @@ static int arizona_runtime_suspend(struct device 
>>> *dev)
>>
>> __maybe_unused?
>>
>>>   \x7f      return 0;
>>>   }
>>> -#endif
>>>   \x7f-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>   static int arizona_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>
>> __maybe_unused?
>>
>>>   {
>>>       struct arizona *arizona = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> @@ -784,17 +781,21 @@ static int arizona_resume(struct device *dev)
>>
>> __maybe_unused?
>>
>>>   \x7f      return 0;
>>>   }
>>> -#endif
>>>   \x7f+#ifndef CONFIG_PM
>>> +static __maybe_unused
>>> +#endif
>>
>> No need to ifdef a __maybe_unused.
> 
> Yes, it is needed, because the symbol is conditionally exported. If

Why conditionally export it?

> !CONFIG_PM, we want the compiler to discard the dev_pm_ops
  and all the
> callbacks, hence the "static __maybe_unused". That's the same trick used > in _EXPORT_DEV_PM_OPS().
> 
> (note that this patch is broken as it does not change the struct name, 
> in the !PM case, which causes conflicts with the .h. I'll fix in v2)
> 
>>>   const struct dev_pm_ops arizona_pm_ops = {
>>> -    SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(arizona_runtime_suspend,
>>> -               arizona_runtime_resume,
>>> -               NULL)
>>> -    SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(arizona_suspend, arizona_resume)
>>> -    SET_NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(arizona_suspend_noirq,
>>> -                      arizona_resume_noirq)
>>> +    RUNTIME_PM_OPS(arizona_runtime_suspend,
>>> +               arizona_runtime_resume,
>>> +               NULL)
>>> +    SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(arizona_suspend, arizona_resume)
>>> +    NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(arizona_suspend_noirq,
>>> +                  arizona_resume_noirq)
>>>   };
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arizona_pm_ops);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> This ifdeffing is ugly. Why must the structure only be exported if
>> CONFIG_PM is set?
> 
> So that all the PM code is garbage-collected by the compiler if !CONFIG_PM.

The functions will be dropped if they are not referenced. That doesn't
answer why the struct must not be exported.

What is the aim of omitting the struct export?

> 
> Ideally I would use something like EXPORT_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() which 
> would make the patch much cleaner, but it doesn't support noirq 
> callbacks - and that's why I suggested in the cover letter that maybe a 
> new PM macro can be added if this patch is deemed too messy.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Paul
> 
>>>   \x7f  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>   static int arizona_of_get_core_pdata(struct arizona *arizona)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/arizona-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/arizona-i2c.c
>>> index 6d83e6b9a692..8799d9183bee 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/arizona-i2c.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/arizona-i2c.c
>>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id 
>>> arizona_i2c_of_match[] = {
>>>   static struct i2c_driver arizona_i2c_driver = {
>>>       .driver = {
>>>           .name    = "arizona",
>>> -        .pm    = &arizona_pm_ops,
>>> +        .pm    = pm_ptr(&arizona_pm_ops),
>>>           .of_match_table    = of_match_ptr(arizona_i2c_of_match),
>>>       },
>>>       .probe        = arizona_i2c_probe,
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/arizona-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/arizona-spi.c
>>> index 941b0267d09d..da05b966d48c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/arizona-spi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/arizona-spi.c
>>> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id 
>>> arizona_spi_of_match[] = {
>>>   static struct spi_driver arizona_spi_driver = {
>>>       .driver = {
>>>           .name    = "arizona",
>>> -        .pm    = &arizona_pm_ops,
>>> +        .pm    = pm_ptr(&arizona_pm_ops),
>>>           .of_match_table    = of_match_ptr(arizona_spi_of_match),
>>>           .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(arizona_acpi_match),
>>>       },
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-08 10:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-07 14:52 [PATCH 00/28] mfd: Remove #ifdef guards for PM functions Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 01/28] mfd: 88pm80x: Remove #ifdef guards for PM related functions Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 02/28] mfd: aat2870: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 03/28] mfd: adp5520: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08  7:46   ` Hennerich, Michael
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 04/28] mfd: max8925-i2c: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 05/28] mfd: mt6397-irq: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 06/28] mfd: pcf50633: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 07/28] mfd: rc5t583-irq: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 08/28] mfd: stpmic1: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 09/28] mfd: ucb1x00: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 10/28] mfd: 88pm860x: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 11/28] mfd: intel_soc_pmic: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 15:50   ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-08-07 15:58     ` Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08 11:56       ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-08-08 12:13         ` Lee Jones
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 12/28] mfd: mcp-sa11x0: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 13/28] mfd: sec: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08  9:11   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-08  9:28     ` Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08 10:06       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-08 10:14         ` Paul Cercueil
2022-08-09 15:33     ` Lee Jones
2022-08-09 15:51       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-09 17:26         ` Lee Jones
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 14/28] mfd: sm501: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 15/28] mfd: tc6387xb: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 16/28] mfd: tps6586x: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 17/28] mfd: wm8994: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 18/28] mfd: max77620: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 19/28] mfd: t7l66xb: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 20/28] mfd: arizona: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 17:33   ` kernel test robot
2022-08-08  9:53   ` Richard Fitzgerald
2022-08-08 10:06     ` Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08 10:43       ` Richard Fitzgerald [this message]
2022-08-08 11:01         ` Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08 14:00           ` Richard Fitzgerald
2022-08-08 14:47             ` Lee Jones
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 21/28] mfd: max14577: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08  9:11   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-08 10:06   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 22/28] mfd: max77686: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-08  9:11   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-08 10:06   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 23/28] mfd: motorola-cpcap: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 24/28] mfd: sprd-sc27xx: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 25/28] mfd: stmfx: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 16:00   ` kernel test robot
2022-08-07 18:15   ` kernel test robot
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 26/28] mfd: stmpe: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 16:42   ` kernel test robot
2022-08-07 17:13   ` kernel test robot
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 27/28] mfd: tc3589x: " Paul Cercueil
2022-08-07 14:52 ` [PATCH 28/28] mfd: tc6393xb: " Paul Cercueil

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2c5c063b-da58-1f6f-5422-1ada3dabb90a@opensource.cirrus.com \
    --to=rf@opensource.cirrus.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@opensource.cirrus.com \
    --cc=paul@crapouillou.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®