On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:30:12PM +0530, Tushar Behera wrote: > Add dummy implemention of public symbols for compilation-safe inclusion > of include/linux/pwm.h file when CONFIG_PWM is not defined. > > Reported-by: Sachin Kamat <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <[email protected]> > --- > Changes since v2: > * #if condition for legacy functions modified > * Reverted layout changes, can be taken up when HAVE_PWM is no longer > required. > > Changes since v1: > * Incorporated Thierry's suggestions regarding adding dummy function > implemention for all global functions > * Reorganized header file to have structure definitions first and then the > function definitions. > > include/linux/pwm.h | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
This is starting to look real good. Two more things I forgot to mention
on the last round. And one nitpick.
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index 21d076c..2c5daa9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> struct pwm_device;
> struct seq_file;
>
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_PWM)
> /*
> * pwm_request - request a PWM device
> */
> @@ -30,8 +31,29 @@ int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> * pwm_disable - stop a PWM output toggling
> */
> void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> +#else
> +static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_request(int pwm_id, const char *label)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{}
These should also go on separate lines. I should have been more clear
about that. So:
static inline void pwm_free(struct pwm_device *pwm)
{
}
There are a couple more of these below.
> +
> +static inline int pwm_config(struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int
> period_ns)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{}
> +#endif /* !(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_PWM)) */
I don't think this comment is necessary. Most editors allow you to jump
to the matching #if or #else. Mostly these comments just confuse me.
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PWM
> struct pwm_chip;
>
> enum {
> @@ -113,6 +135,7 @@ struct pwm_chip {
> unsigned int of_pwm_n_cells;
> };
>
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM)
> int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data);
> void *pwm_get_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm);
>
> @@ -124,6 +147,43 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_request_from_chip(struct pwm_chip
> *chip,
>
> struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *consumer);
> void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm);
> +#else
> +static inline int pwm_set_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm, void *data)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *pwm_get_chip_data(struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int pwmchip_remove(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_request_from_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> + unsigned int index,
> + const char *label)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> + const char *consumer)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
Can you align the split parameter list on subsequent lines with the
first parameter, please? Like so:
static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_request_from_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip,
unsigned int index,
const char *label)
static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev,
const char *consumer)
Thierry
pgpiQOwEIra5k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
