Re: [PATCH] backlight: use of_find_backlight_by_node stub when backlight class disabled

["Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>]

Am Dienstag, 4. November 2014, 14:42:20 schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Jingoo Han wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 04, 2014 6:08 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > > > > Drivers may want to search for an optional backlight even when the
> > > > > backlight class is disabled. In this case the linker would miss the
> > > > > function referenced in the backlight header.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore use the stub function also when the backlight class is
> > > > > disabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > >  include/linux/backlight.h | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Applied to Backlight -next with Jingoo's Ack.
> > > 
> > > I've removed this patch, as it causes unexpected:
> > >   Redefinition of of_find_backlight_by_node()
> > 
> > I reproduced the same build error.
> > 
> > Then, how about folding the following two patches into
> > one single patch? These two patches were already sent by Heiko Stübner.
> > 
> >   [PATCH] backlight: use of_find_backlight_by_node stub when backlight
> >   class disabled [PATCH] backlight: extend of_find_backlight_by_node
> >   stub-check to modules> 
> > Then, the one single patch will do as follows.
> > 
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_OF) && (defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE) || \
> > +			   defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE_MODULE))
> > 
> > In this case, I cannot find any build errors.
> 
> That's a neat trick.  I didn't know you could do that.
> 
> However, it's bit messy consider different formatting, or a nested
> #ifdef instead please.

I guess it is a matter of me "not seeing the forrest for the trees", but how
would a nested ifdef look like, as this would result in 3 possible results
when for CONFIG_OF first and then for one of the BACKLIGHT_CLASS defines?


Formatting wise, when applied both defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_foo) parts
are exactly below each other, making it (hopefully) clear where the "or" is
part of. What would look better?


Thanks
Heiko