Re: [PATCH] soundwire: bus: Make IRQ handling conditionally built

[Vinod Koul]

On 20-09-23, 08:51, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 09:05:13AM +0200, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 18-09-23, 17:10, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > SoundWire has provisions for a simple callback for the IRQ handling so
> > > has no hard dependency on IRQ_DOMAIN, but the recent addition of IRQ
> > > handling was causing builds without IRQ_DOMAIN to fail. Resolve this by
> > > moving the IRQ handling into its own file and only add it to the build
> > > when IRQ_DOMAIN is included in the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 12a95123bfe1 ("soundwire: bus: Allow SoundWire peripherals to register IRQ handlers")
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309150522.MoKeF4jx-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/soundwire/Makefile   |  4 +++
> > >  drivers/soundwire/bus.c      | 31 +++----------------
> > >  drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c | 11 +++----
> > >  drivers/soundwire/irq.c      | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  drivers/soundwire/irq.h      | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  5 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 drivers/soundwire/irq.c
> > >  create mode 100644 drivers/soundwire/irq.h
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/Makefile b/drivers/soundwire/Makefile
> > > index c3d3ab3262d3a..657f5888a77b0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/soundwire/Makefile
> > > +++ b/drivers/soundwire/Makefile
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > >  soundwire-bus-y += debugfs.o
> > >  endif
> > >  
> > > +ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN
> > > +soundwire-bus-y += irq.o
> > > +endif
> > 
> > Any reason why we cant use depends for this?
> > 
> 
> No reason we can't, but my thinking was really that SoundWire doesn't
> really have a dependency on IRQ_DOMAIN, as you can use the original
> callback mechanism. It seemed a shame to force it as a dependency,
> when the whole subsystem can function happily without it.
> 
> That said, I am happy to switch to a simple dependency if you prefer?
> It would certainly be a much simpler change.

That is very valid point, not every user needs it... I guess lets go
with this change now, can you fix the comment style and we can merge
this

-- 
~Vinod