Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] iio: adc: ad9467: sort header includes

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 20:17:45 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 05:46:16PM +0200, Tomas Melin wrote:
> > On 09/12/2025 16:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 7:34 AM Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@vaisala.com> wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> Include headers in ascending order.  
> > > 
> > > Thanks, but...
> > >   
> > >>  #include <linux/iio/backend.h>
> > >>  #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> > >>  #include <linux/iio/sysfs.h>  
> > > 
> > > ...this was specifically grouped to show the relation to the certain
> > > subsystem. At the end we should have something like this
> > > 
> > > linux/*.h // generic ones
> > > ...blank line...
> > > asm/*.h // generic ones (optionally, if there is a need in a such)
> > > ...blank line...
> > > linux/iio/*.h
> > > ...blank line...  
> > 
> > Thanks for the clarification. Sure, it's not a big deal to do a new
> > version. But FWIW, that convention is not AFAIS explicitly stated
> > anywhere and with even recent drivers not all following it, it's
> > somewhat hard to know what expected formatting should be.
> > It would really be good to have that documented somewhere.  
> 
> I fully agree. The problem with such a documentation is that you will always
> have 50/50% split at best. At worse ~100% will be against any doc updates
> like this. For minimum we can do it on an IIO level (only for this subsystem),
> see how others do Documentation/process/maintainer-*.rst. There is no IIO.
> You can start it :-)
> 

That maintainer doc is my xmas holiday todo list.  Then again it was
on there last year and I think the year before :(

It's possibly something where we need a rolling draft for a bit out
of tree so that by the time it actually merges it doesn't imply things
simply because we forgot certain aspects.

Jonathan