Re: [PATCH v8 01/17] spi: add basic support for SPI offloading

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:12:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > I have no problem here. If the header becomes stale we will most
> > > probably notice that eventually and remove it.
> > 
> > Lol. Look at the header hell we have now. 98% code in the drivers/ just show
> > that the developers either don't care or do not understand C (in terms of
> > what headers are for and why it's important to follow IWYU principle).
> 
> Yeah, there is a problem. The source is that we have a metric ton of
> recursive includes (i.e. headers that include other headers that include
> still more headers). Even if you care, its sometimes hard to know which
> headers you actually need. One idea on my long-term list is to add a
> machine-parsable info to header files about the list of symbols that the
> given file is responsible for. With that in place we could create a
> linter that tells you that this source file doesn't use any symbols from
> <linux/of_irq.h> and it should #include <linux/of.h> directly instead to
> make use of symbols defined there.
> 
> > > Maybe the unused namespace even makes it easier to spot that issue.
> > 
> > Do we have an existing tools for that?
> 
> There is https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250123110951.370759-2-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com/

But it was rejected.  So, the answer is "we currently do not have tools".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko