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.

There were already few attempts to untangle the dependency hell we have in LK
project, but all seems to fail. The infamous one by Ingo stale, however a few
patches (out of more than 2200!) made upstream.

So, any tooling for that will be warmly accepted!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko