[U-Boot] [PATCH] vexpress64: compile Juno PCIe conditionally

[Ryan Harkin]

On 20 October 2015 at 07:05, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> wrote:

> Only compile in PCIe support if the board really uses it. Provide
> a stub for the init function if e.g. FVP is being built.
>
> Cc: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau at foss.arm.com>
> Cc: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
> ---
>  board/armltd/vexpress64/Makefile | 3 ++-
>  board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.c   | 2 --
>  board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.h   | 4 ++++
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/board/armltd/vexpress64/Makefile
> b/board/armltd/vexpress64/Makefile
> index a35db401b684..b4391a71249a 100644
> --- a/board/armltd/vexpress64/Makefile
> +++ b/board/armltd/vexpress64/Makefile
> @@ -5,4 +5,5 @@
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier:     GPL-2.0+
>  #
>
> -obj-y  := vexpress64.o pcie.o
> +obj-y  := vexpress64.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_TARGET_VEXPRESS64_JUNO)   += pcie.o
> diff --git a/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.c
> b/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.c
> index 7b999e8ef40b..311c4500e3ff 100644
> --- a/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.c
> +++ b/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.c
> @@ -191,7 +191,5 @@ void xr3pci_init(void)
>
>  void vexpress64_pcie_init(void)
>  {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_VEXPRESS64_JUNO
>         xr3pci_init();
> -#endif
>  }
> diff --git a/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.h
> b/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.h
> index 14642f4f5c43..55b276d6af11 100644
> --- a/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.h
> +++ b/board/armltd/vexpress64/pcie.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
>  #ifndef __VEXPRESS64_PCIE_H__
>  #define __VEXPRESS64_PCIE_H__
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_VEXPRESS64_JUNO
>  void vexpress64_pcie_init(void);
> +#else
> +static inline void vexpress64_pcie_init(void) {}
> +#endif
>
>  #endif /* __VEXPRESS64_PCIE_H__ */
>

Tom specifically dropped this hunk when he merged Liviu's patch.  But is it
necessary with the rest of your patch?  If pcie.h is only included in
pcie.c, which is only built for JUNO, then the code shouldn't need
conditional compilation. So I think we can drop the hunk, no?