From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>, "'Bryan Wu'" <cooloney@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight: use of_find_backlight_by_node stub when backlight class disabled
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:02:32 +0100
Message-ID: <28305505.Hd0ru0QyPE@diego>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.4 (Linux/3.13-1-amd64; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20141104144220.GR17577@x1>
References: <50522512.UJWUZtqLop@diego> <001101cff818$bfe149b0$3fa3dd10$%han@samsung.com> <20141104144220.GR17577@x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Am Dienstag, 4. November 2014, 14:42:20 schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Jingoo Han wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 04, 2014 6:08 PM, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> > > > > Drivers may want to search for an optional backlight even when the
> > > > > backlight class is disabled. In this case the linker would miss the
> > > > > function referenced in the backlight header.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore use the stub function also when the backlight class is
> > > > > disabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > >  include/linux/backlight.h | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Applied to Backlight -next with Jingoo's Ack.
> > > 
> > > I've removed this patch, as it causes unexpected:
> > >   Redefinition of of_find_backlight_by_node()
> > 
> > I reproduced the same build error.
> > 
> > Then, how about folding the following two patches into
> > one single patch? These two patches were already sent by Heiko St?bner.
> > 
> >   [PATCH] backlight: use of_find_backlight_by_node stub when backlight
> >   class disabled [PATCH] backlight: extend of_find_backlight_by_node
> >   stub-check to modules> 
> > Then, the one single patch will do as follows.
> > 
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_OF) && (defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE) || \
> > +			   defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE_MODULE))
> > 
> > In this case, I cannot find any build errors.
> 
> That's a neat trick.  I didn't know you could do that.
> 
> However, it's bit messy consider different formatting, or a nested
> #ifdef instead please.

I guess it is a matter of me "not seeing the forrest for the trees", but how
would a nested ifdef look like, as this would result in 3 possible results
when for CONFIG_OF first and then for one of the BACKLIGHT_CLASS defines?


Formatting wise, when applied both defined(CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_foo) parts
are exactly below each other, making it (hopefully) clear where the "or" is
part of. What would look better?


Thanks
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/