Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 16:06:09 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: split up into multiple
 drivers
Message-ID: <Y/938WpvjQ3HEOwD@google.com>
References: <20230221122414.24874-1-henning.schild@siemens.com>
 <20230221122414.24874-3-henning.schild@siemens.com>
 <Y/TMR0GBUr69KiQ5@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20230221154354.290ae938@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net>
 <Y/TaftuNMABevCWV@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <bf678bc5-9615-31a3-3039-5d013f9c9f25@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <bf678bc5-9615-31a3-3039-5d013f9c9f25@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 01 Mar 2023, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 2/21/23 15:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> >> Am Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:51:03 +0200
> >> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:24:13PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> >>>> In order to clearly describe the dependencies between the gpio  
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >>>> +#ifndef __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO
> >>>> +#define __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO  
> >>>
> >>>> +#endif /* __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO */  
> >>>
> >>> This header doesn't look right.
> >>>
> >>> Have you run `make W=1 ...` against your patches?
> >>
> >> No reports.
> >>
> >>> Even if it doesn't show defined but unused errors
> >>> the idea is that this should be a C-file, called,
> >>> let's say, ...-core.c.
> >>
> >> When i started i kind of had a -common.c in mind as well. But then the
> >> header idea came and i gave it a try, expecting questions in the review.
> >>
> >> It might be a bit unconventional but it seems to do the trick pretty
> >> well. Do you see a concrete problem or a violation of a rule?
> > 
> > Exactly as described above. The header approach means that *all* static
> > definitions must be used by each user of that file. Otherwise you will
> > get "defined but not used" compiler warning.
> > 
> > And approach itself is considered (at least by me) as a hackish way to
> > achieve what usually should be done via C-file.
> > 
> > So, if maintainers are okay, I wouldn't have objections, but again
> > I do not think it's a correct approach.
> 
> I agree with Andy here, please add a -common.o file with a shared
> probe() helper which gets the 2 different gpiod_lookup_table-s
> as parameter and then put the actual probe() function calling
> the helper inside the 2 different .c files.

Thanks for your reviews guys, I really appreciate the help.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]