On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 13:28 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:17:45AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:55 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:40:38AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:49 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id dataflash_dt_ids[] = { > > > > > > > + { .compatible = "atmel,at45xxx", }, > > > > > > > + { .compatible = "atmel,dataflash", }, > > > > > > > + { /* sentinel */ } > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > This should be protected with a #ifdef CONFIG_OF/#else/#endif, and > > > > > > there should be a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(). > > > > > > > > > > > I personally hate #ifdef stuff. But okay, I can do it since there > > > > > are people being concerned by this little waste of space. > > > > > > > > I guess the question is - will it compile and work if CONFIG_OF is > > > > unset? > > > > > > > Yes, it will compile, as 'struct of_device_id' is defined in > > > include/linux/mod_devicetable.h unconditionally. > > > > And it will work correctly even though dataflash_dt_ids is not NULL, it > > will not confuse MTD layer? > > > I think for non-dt case, dataflash_dt_ids is not used anyway. So yes, > it will not confuse MTD layer, at least from my testing.
And it is not error-prone? I mean, it is not very likely that someone changing MTD could make wrong assumptions and break dataflash driver? If so, then we probably do not need ifdefs indeed. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss