Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: alc5632: add an of_match table

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 12:05:17AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 04:53:57PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 03/31/2014 04:45 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > of_match_ptr() is supposed to avoid the warnings that the ifdefs fixed
> > > more prettily - I suspect you'll find that the ones that don't use it
> > > either predate of_match_ptr() or copied something that did.
> 
> > I believe you either have the ifdef and the of_match_ptr(), or you have
> > neither. The use of of_match_ptr() is required when you wrap the
> > struct/array in an ifdef, so that the struct/array is only referenced
> > when it's declared.
> 
> > I guess from your response you want the struct/array wrapped in an
> > ifdef, and to use of_match_ptr() when referencing it. I'll go ahead with
> > that; no need to reply if that's what you meant.
> 
> No, what I'm saying is you shouldn't need the ifdef any more if you use
> of_match_ptr() and that's the more modern way to do things.

But I don't think that's the way it works. If you drop the #ifdef around
the struct of_device_id table and use of_match_ptr() when referencing it
then you'll get a warning from the compiler because the table is in fact
unreferenced. So all that of_match_ptr() really gives you is a way to
omit the:

	#else
	#  define of_match_table NULL

So it doesn't really give you all that much in the end.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]