On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 6:25 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 02:21:04PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 08:29:46AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:42:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > What I would prefer is something like the first paragraph in that > > > > section: the #ifdef in a header file that declares the function and > > > > defines a no-op stub, with the implementation in some pwrctrl file. > > > > > > pci_pwrctrl_create_device() is static, but it is possible to #ifdef > > > the whole function in the .c file and provide the stub in an #else > > > branch. That's easier to follow than #ifdef'ing portions of the > > > function. > > > > > > > +1 > > I dropped the ball here and didn't get any fix for this in v6.15. :-( > > > Why do we need pci_pwrctrl_create_device() in drivers/pci/probe.c? > The obvious thing would have been to put the implementation in > drivers/pci/pwrctrl with a stub in drivers/pci/pci.h, so I assume > there's some reason we can't do that? I was wondering if we could confine PWRCTL/_SLOT to work on a per PCIe controller basis. For example, if we allow the port DT node to have boolean "pwrctrl;" property, it would direct the PWRCTL code to operate on the regulators within that node. This would allow CONFIG_PWRCTL/_SLOT and the pcie-brcmstb.c way of controlling regulators to happily coexist. One could argue that "pwrctrl;" does not describe the HW as a DT property should, but I think it should be considered nevertheless. Regards, Jim Quinlan Broadcom STB
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
