Re: [PATCH] spi: bcm63xx: remove PM_SLEEP based conditional compilation

[Dhruva Gole]

Hi Jonas,

On 24/04/23 13:50, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 19:17, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 4/20/23 05:16, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> > > Get rid of conditional compilation based on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP because
> > > it may introduce build issues with certain configs where it maybe disabled
> > > This is because if above config is not enabled the suspend-resume
> > > functions are never part of the code but the bcm63xx_spi_pm_ops struct
> > > still inits them to non-existent suspend-resume functions.
> > >
> > > Fixes: b42dfed83d95 ("spi: add Broadcom BCM63xx SPI controller driver")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c | 2 --
> > >    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c
> > > index 96633a0051b1..99395932074c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c
> > > @@ -617,7 +617,6 @@ static void bcm63xx_spi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >        clk_disable_unprepare(bs->clk);
> > >    }
> > >
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > >    static int bcm63xx_spi_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >
> > Don't we need a __maybe_unused here?
>
> Actually the premise of this patch is wrong, and should rather be reverted.
>
> The bcm63xx_spi_pm_ops struct is initialized with
> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(), which is defined as
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> #define SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
> SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn)
> #else
> #define SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn)
> #endif

Thanks for pointing this out, I must have missed this.
Anyway, I have sent another patch to migrate to using
DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS as per Mark's suggestion [0]. There I think it
would be necessary to remove the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP checks in the driver.
So no need to revert this patch.


> so for !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP it won't initialize the struct at all (or
> reference non-existing functions), and therefore there will be no
> build issues.
>
> Regards,
> Jonas


[0] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/e65683c1-9f1b-4cfb-8e14-087ef7d69595@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/

--
Thanks and Regards,
Dhruva Gole