Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pinctrl: intel: Import namespace for pwm_lpss function

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 05:30:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 05:48:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:52:06PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:45:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:11 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> > > > <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The intel pinctrl driver can provide a PWM device and for that needs to
> > > > > call the function devm_pwm_lpss_probe(). That function is provided by
> > > > > the pwm-lpss driver which intends to export it in the "PWM_LPSS"
> > > > > namespace. To prepare fixing the pwm-lpss driver to indeed use the
> > > > > "PWM_LPSS" namespace, import that namespace when used.

...

> > > > > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS)
> > > > 
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > 
> > > > Why?
> > > 
> > > Because devm_pwm_lpss_probe() is only used #if
> > > IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PWM_LPSS). Without the #if but with
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250123110951.370759-2-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com/
> > > this results in a warning (with W=1) :-)
> > 
> > There is no such commit in the current Linux Next, so let's solve the issues
> > when they come up.
> > 
> > I'm okay to take your series via Intel pin control without that ifdeffery.
> > If you don't agree on the change, we need to find the way how to avoid ugly
> > ifdeffery from day 1.
> 
> I'm ok with dropping the #if. Should I resend or do you want to edit the
> patch? Would you take both patches then?

I can take both. No need to resend.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko