From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: use the required minimum set of headers
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:33:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z7iq74pfOT-4gmIy@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MeJn4URkXoCTC_tpTKfQ7OL=BjytcY-k4BB2QUwsVXnBQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:17:50PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 5:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 01:30:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > Thanks for taking my suggestion into account!
> >
> > > Andy suggested we should keep a fine-grained scheme for includes and
> > > only pull in stuff required within individual ifdef sections. Let's
> > > revert commit dea69f2d1cc8 ("gpiolib: move all includes to the top of
> > > gpio/consumer.h") and make the headers situation even more fine-grained
> > > by only including the first level headers containing requireded symbols
> > > except for bug.h where checkpatch.pl warns against including asm/bug.h.
> >
> > I'm not sure we should consider the checkpatch.pl in this case.
...
> > This change is definitely an improvement from the current state in your
> > gpio/for-next branch, if you are really strong about linux/bug.h, let me more
> > time to check that header and see if there any potential issues.
>
> Sure, take your time. For some reason checkpatch does recommend using
> linux/foo.h over asm/foo.h if the former includes the latter but I
> don't know the history of this.
I know the history of this, lately (last year) it was again a discussion result
of which is linux/unaligned.h. But this recommendation is only for the leaf files
or custom (local) headers and code, it doesn't fully applicable to the globally
accessed headers, like gpio/consumer.h. I consider this as false positive by
checkpatch.
Yes, I will check more on the header nevertheless.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-21 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-21 12:30 [PATCH] gpiolib: use the required minimum set of headers Bartosz Golaszewski
2025-02-21 16:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-02-21 16:17 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2025-02-21 16:33 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2025-02-24 11:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-02-22 15:57 kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z7iq74pfOT-4gmIy@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.