On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 03:30:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 3:16 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 06:07:48PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 08:21:20PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > > ld: drivers/pci/probe.o: in function `pci_scan_single_device': > > > > >> probe.c:(.text+0x2400): undefined reference to `pci_pwrctrl_create_device' > > > > > > Hmm, so we cannot have a built-in driver depend on a module... > > > > > > Bartosz, should we make CONFIG_PCI_PWRCTRL bool then? We can still allow the > > > individual pwrctrl drivers be tristate. > > > > I guess the alternative is to just leave it in probe.c. The function is > > optimized away in the CONFIG_OF=n case because of_pci_find_child_device() > > returns NULL. It's unpleasant that it lives outside of pwrctrl/core.c, > > but it doesn't occupy any space in the compiled kernel at least on non-OF > > (e.g. ACPI) platforms. > > > > And there's a third option of having this function live in a separate > .c file under drivers/pci/pwrctl/ that would be always built-in even > if PWRCTL itself is a module. The best/worst of two worlds? :) > I would try to avoid the third option at any cost ;) Because the pwrctrl/core.c would no longer be the 'core' and the code structure would look distorted. Let's see what Bjorn thinks about option 1 and 2. I did not account for the built-in vs modular dependency when Bjorn asked me if the move was possible. And I now vaguely remember that I kept it in probe.c initially because of this dependency. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
