From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: allow building emev2 without slave mode again
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:34:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151210133446.GC1573@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2144222.LfzPx9mJ0p@wuerfel>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1960 bytes --]
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:14:49PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The emev2 driver stopped compiling in today's linux-next kernel:
>
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c: In function 'em_i2c_slave_irq':
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c:233:23: error: storage size of 'event' isn't known
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c:250:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'i2c_slave_event' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c:250:32: error: 'I2C_SLAVE_STOP' undeclared (first use in this function)
>
> It works again if we enable CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE, but it seems wrong
> to add a dependency on that symbol:
>
> * The symbol is user-selectable, but only one or two (including this
> one) bus drivers actually implement it, and it makes no sense
> if you don't have one of them.
>
> * The other driver (R-Car) uses 'select I2C_SLAVE', which seems
> reasonable in principle, but we should not do that on user
> visible symbols.
>
> * I2C slave mode could be implemented in a lot of other drivers
> as an optional feature, but we shouldn't require enabling it
> if we don't use it.
>
> This changes the two drivers that provide I2C slave mode so they
> can again build if the slave mode being disabled. To do this, I
> move the definition of i2c_slave_event() and enum i2c_slave_event
> out of the #ifdef and instead make the assignment of the reg_slave
> and unreg_slave pointers optional in the bus drivers. The functions
> implementing the feature are unused in that case, so they get
> marked as __maybe_unused in order to still give compile-time
> coverage.
Thanks a lot! Making this clear and consistent was on my todo-list,
unfortunately below some other items.
Both drivers have quite orthogonal slave_irq routines. What do you think
about grouping this and the reg/unreg-calls together and compile them
conditionally on I2C_SLAVE? I think the code savings are worth it.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-10 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-10 13:14 [PATCH] i2c: allow building emev2 without slave mode again Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-10 13:34 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2015-12-10 13:51 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-10 14:54 ` kbuild test robot
2015-12-10 15:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-10 15:17 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-12 16:20 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-12 21:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-13 9:09 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-14 12:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-14 13:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-14 22:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-17 12:01 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-17 14:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-17 19:40 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-12-17 19:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=20151210133446.GC1573@katana \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).