On 2017-07-07 23:41, [email protected] wrote: > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <[email protected]> > > Add dummy functions to avoid compile time issues when CONFIG_MULTIPLEXER > is not enabled.
Hi! Consumers should "select MULTIPLEXER", so this does not make sense. Or do you have a driver that has an optional mux consumer? > Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan > <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/mux/consumer.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h > index 5577e1b..744a5b8 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h > +++ b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > struct device; > struct mux_control; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIPLEXER > unsigned int mux_control_states(struct mux_control *mux); > int __must_check mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, > unsigned int state); > @@ -29,4 +30,41 @@ void mux_control_put(struct mux_control *mux); > struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev, > const char *mux_name); > > +#else > +unsigned int mux_control_states(struct mux_control *mux) static inline Cheers, peda > +{ > + return -ENODEV; > +} > + > +int __must_check mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, > + unsigned int state) > +{ > + return -ENODEV; > +} > + > +int __must_check mux_control_try_select(struct mux_control *mux, > + unsigned int state) > +{ > + return -ENODEV; > +} > + > +int mux_control_deselect(struct mux_control *mux) > +{ > + return -ENODEV; > +} > + > +struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name) > +{ > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > +} > + > +void mux_control_put(struct mux_control *mux) {} > + > +struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev, > + const char *mux_name) > +{ > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > +} > +#endif > + > #endif /* _LINUX_MUX_CONSUMER_H */ >
