On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:19 PM Richard Cochran
<richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:25:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > This is not really getting any better. If Richard is worried about
> > Kconfig getting changed here, I would suggest handling the
> > case of PTP being disabled by returning an error early on in the
> > function, like
> >
> > struct am65_cpts *am65_cpts_create(struct device *dev, void __iomem *regs,
> > struct device_node *node)
> > {
> > struct am65_cpts *cpts;
> > int ret, i;
> >
> > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK))
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> No, please, no. That only adds confusion. The NULL return value
> already signals that the compile time support was missing. That was
> the entire point of this...
>
> * ptp_clock_register() - register a PTP hardware clock driver
> *
> * @info: Structure describing the new clock.
> * @parent: Pointer to the parent device of the new clock.
> *
> * Returns a valid pointer on success or PTR_ERR on failure. If PHC
> * support is missing at the configuration level, this function
> * returns NULL, and drivers are expected to gracefully handle that
> * case separately.
The problem is that the caller doesn't handle that case gracefully,
but it instead wants to return an error after all. I don't see a good
solution either; as far as I'm concerned we should never be building
code that fails if PTP_1588_CLOCK is disabled when it cannot
do anything sensible in that configuration.
I agree that the 'imply' keyword in Kconfig is what made this a
lot worse, and it would be best to replace that with normal
dependencies.
It would be possible to have a ptp_clock_register_optional()
interface in addition to ptp_clock_register(), which could then
be changed to return an error. Some other subsystems follow
this pattern, but it's not any less confusing either.
Arnd
