Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] hwspinlock: refactor headers into public provider/consumer pair

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

On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 08:51:46PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> > > Moving maintainers from CC to To ;) Do you, in general, approve this
> > > change to the headers?
> > 
> > Certainly, I don't think we should force unnatural slicing of drivers
> > across the source tree.
> 
> Cool, glad you like it.
> 
> > I've always found the current model unergonomic, resolving this part
> > might very well have the side effect that Andy is looking for (and I'd
> > welcome that).
> 
> Yeah probably, but frankly the task of redesigning hwlock-allocation is
> a bit exceeding my bandwidth for this project. Can we make this a second
> step on top of this series?

How do you see it's done if others will (*) start (ab)using that struct
directly?

> And if so, would be this series acceptable
> as-is then (modulo the better include-sorting mentioned by Andy)?

*From my experience it's not the Q "will they or not?", the Q is "when?"
 they start abusing it. I really prefer to hide as much as possible from
 day 1. Maybe the structure can be split to two? Currently IIO has a
 (painful and long) conversion from open to opaque. Taking this into account
 I really don't won't to repeat this design mistake. But it's all up to
 the maintainers, of course. Just my deep worries about this... while
 the idea, as I said, I fully support.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko