[PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Andy Shevchenko]

The fwnode.h is not supposed to be used by the drivers as it
has the definitions for the core parts for different device
property provider implementations. Drop it.

Note, that fwnode API for drivers is provided in property.h
which is included here.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 sound/soc/amd/acp/amd-sdw-acpi.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/amd/acp/amd-sdw-acpi.c b/sound/soc/amd/acp/amd-sdw-acpi.c
index 238b584887ee..0160b0df26a0 100644
--- a/sound/soc/amd/acp/amd-sdw-acpi.c
+++ b/sound/soc/amd/acp/amd-sdw-acpi.c
@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@
 #include <linux/device.h>
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 #include <linux/export.h>
-#include <linux/fwnode.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/property.h>
 #include <linux/soundwire/sdw_amd.h>
 #include <linux/string.h>
 
-- 
2.47.2

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:09:43AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The fwnode.h is not supposed to be used by the drivers as it
> has the definitions for the core parts for different device
> property provider implementations. Drop it.
> 
> Note, that fwnode API for drivers is provided in property.h
> which is included here.

Any news here?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:55:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:09:43AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The fwnode.h is not supposed to be used by the drivers as it
> > has the definitions for the core parts for different device
> > property provider implementations. Drop it.
> > 
> > Note, that fwnode API for drivers is provided in property.h
> > which is included here.
> 
> Any news here?

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:45:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:55:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:09:43AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The fwnode.h is not supposed to be used by the drivers as it
> > > has the definitions for the core parts for different device
> > > property provider implementations. Drop it.
> > > 
> > > Note, that fwnode API for drivers is provided in property.h
> > > which is included here.
> > 
> > Any news here?
> 
> Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
> for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
> on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
> please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
> review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.
> 
> Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
> all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
> directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
> anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
> some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
> for the subsystem are normally handled.

I truly believe the 5 month is reasonable time for review, no?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 07:01:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:45:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
> > directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
> > anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
> > some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
> > for the subsystem are normally handled.

> I truly believe the 5 month is reasonable time for review, no?

You're missing the part about how you should resend instead.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 09:13:20PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 07:01:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:45:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
> > > directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
> > > anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
> > > some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
> > > for the subsystem are normally handled.
> 
> > I truly believe the 5 month is reasonable time for review, no?
> 
> You're missing the part about how you should resend instead.

Noted, thanks! 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko