Android:Remove dependency on device/device.gyp:device_usb

Android:Remove dependency on device/device.gyp:device_usb

Saves about 600k in the shared library size.

The dependency was present but we started linking in the library after:
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11280311/

BUG=155069
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=173014

[nilesh, 2012-12-11 21:25:36]

PTAL.

sky: chrome/browser/DEPS, and gyp files
yoz: extensions

[Matt Perry, 2012-12-11 21:34:59]

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.cc:342: #if
defined(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)
This is weird. Every other permission is compiled in regardless of
ENABLE_EXTENSIONS. If USB depends on something you don't link in, why not put
the #ifdef at the point where that dependency exists?

[nilesh, 2012-12-11 21:48:41]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/1/chrome/common/extensions/perm...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/api_permission.cc:342: #if
defined(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)
On 2012/12/11 21:35:00, Matt Perry wrote:
> This is weird. Every other permission is compiled in regardless of
> ENABLE_EXTENSIONS. If USB depends on something you don't link in, why not put
> the #ifdef at the point where that dependency exists?

Makes sense. Please take another look.

[Matt Perry, 2012-12-11 21:49:19]

lgtm

[sky, 2012-12-11 21:57:10]

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc:17: #if
defined(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)
Why are we grouping usb inside ENABLE_EXTENSIONS? Should it be its own feature,
eg ENABLE_USB?

[nilesh, 2012-12-11 22:15:09]

Currently the dependency on device_usb is only needed for extensions support.
That is why I think it is ok to hide it under ENABLE_EXTENTIONS.

I can also modify patchset 1 to compile out all permissions if extensions are
disabled (instead of just usb), and then we can exclude usb_device_permission.cc
again (but this is a more disruptive change and we need to disable a lot of
extension tests).

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc:17: #if
defined(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)
On 2012/12/11 21:57:10, sky wrote:
> Why are we grouping usb inside ENABLE_EXTENSIONS? Should it be its own
feature,
> eg ENABLE_USB?

Currently device/usb/usb_ids.h is used only by this class (in extensions). If we
have another flag ENABLE_USB then it will have to be set whenever
ENABLE_EXTENSIONS is on (or we would have broken usb support).

[sky, 2012-12-11 23:03:35]

Will usb support only be under extensions in the foreseeable future?

    -Scott

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Currently the dependency on device_usb is only needed for extensions
> support.
> That is why I think it is ok to hide it under ENABLE_EXTENTIONS.
>
> I can also modify patchset 1 to compile out all permissions if extensions
> are
> disabled (instead of just usb), and then we can exclude
> usb_device_permission.cc
> again (but this is a more disruptive change and we need to disable a lot of
> extension tests).
>
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
> File chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc
> (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/diff/10002/chrome/common/extensions/...
> chrome/common/extensions/permissions/usb_device_permission.cc:17: #if
> defined(ENABLE_EXTENSIONS)
> On 2012/12/11 21:57:10, sky wrote:
>>
>> Why are we grouping usb inside ENABLE_EXTENSIONS? Should it be its own
>
> feature,
>>
>> eg ENABLE_USB?
>
>
> Currently device/usb/usb_ids.h is used only by this class (in
> extensions). If we have another flag ENABLE_USB then it will have to be
> set whenever ENABLE_EXTENSIONS is on (or we would have broken usb
> support).
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/11536012/

[nilesh, 2012-12-11 23:52:43]

Adding device/OWNERS

miket/bryeung: Are you aware of any other feature which is planning to use
device.gyp:device_usb ?

[bryeung, 2012-12-13 16:39:11]

On 2012/12/11 23:52:43, nileshagrawal1 wrote:
> Adding device/OWNERS
> 
> miket/bryeung: Are you aware of any other feature which is planning to use
> device.gyp:device_usb ?

No: I don't think there are any other features planning to use device_usb.

But the CL as it is seems a bit worrying: replying with an empty message for a
permission looks dangerous.  Can this NOTREACHED() at least?

[nilesh, 2012-12-13 18:17:18]

Added NOTREACHED()

breung/sky: PTAL

[miket_OOO, 2012-12-13 18:23:12]

lgtm

[sky, 2012-12-13 20:18:39]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-12-13 20:22:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/[email protected]/11536012/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-12-14 00:16:43]

Change committed as 173014