Hi, Arnd
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] clk: imx: Support building i.MX common clock > driver as module > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:40 AM Dong Aisheng <donga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Anson Huang <anson.hu...@nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] clk: imx: Support building i.MX common > > > > clock > > > > > > I am fine of adding the '#ifndef MODULE' to imx_clk_disable_uart() > > > and imx_keep_uart_clocks_param() as well in next patch series. > > > Others like ' imx_keep_uart_clocks ' and imx_register_uart_clocks() need > > > to > be kept always built, since they are used by each clock driver no matter > built-in or module build. > > > > > > So that means I have to add another 'ifndef MODULE' or I need to > > > adjust some code sequence to make those code can be built-out in > > > same block and just use single 'ifndef MODULE', I think adjust the code > sequence should be better, will go with this way. > > > > What if we condionally compile it in clk.h? Will that be easiser? > > Yes, that's what I expected to see in v4 after the previous discussion. If > imx_register_uart_clocks() is an empty inline function, then the arrays passed > to it are unused and also get dropped by the compiler. > > The question is whether the #ifdef check in the header to test for MODULE > (only calling it if this particular soc has a built-in clk driver, which is > sufficient) > or for IS_MODULE(CONFIG_MXC_CLK) (call it if _any_ clk driver is built-in and > the function exists, which leaves extra code in the driver but is a more > conventional check). > So you prefer to add an empty inline function for imx_register_uart_clocks() with check of MODULE build? Even with this, we still need to add MODULE build check to whole block of this earlycon uart clock handler in imx/clk.c. Thanks, Anson
