Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Actually make use of the I2C_DW_COMMON and I2C_DW symbol namespaces

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

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 01:07:11AM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 10:26:34AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > > On 12/5/24 9:53 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 11:25:40AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 03:23:52AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 11:46:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:27:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > > > > DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE must already be defined when <linux/export.h>
> > > > > > > > > is included. So move the define above the include block.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As in the other email I pointed out the doc says that we need to undef the
> > > > > > > > symbol. No need to move it around.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The only requirement is to place that before any EXPORT_SYMBOL*() we want to
> > > > > > > > add it to.

[...]

> > > > > > Perhaps we need to update the documentation first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I addressed that in https://lore.kernel.org/all/3dd7ff6fa0a636de86e091286016be8c90e03631.1733305665.git.ukleinek@kernel.org/
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you!
> > 
> > > Andy: is this your reviewed by? If so then
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > I would like to have a clarifications from Documentation to be settled down
> > first. When it's done, depending on the outcome it may or may not be my Rb tag.
> 
> ping! Andy,

Sorry, I'm on vacation till mid-January.

> I don't feel like merging this patch without your ack
> as you had quite many comments here.

Yeah, it seems now we got the second approach, we need to choose one and
document it. This just makes my point: documentation needs to have
clarification to make sure everybody got it right and provide a unified
solution.

> Can you please check here again?

FWIW, technically the patch is correct and needed, but see above.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko