[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 at gmail.com> 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 at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>    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@sirena.org.uk/

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Dhruva Gole