From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A65B32E120 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770720274; cv=none; b=VyLKI2fdOLMHTfV2FwRfUz3mWsM8klcXzHNm1TvdnS1ts0EC3xog8un1sHtbu6hrx2MUDvL4UVSHw12I/7k8W+bgHKIsbpAlmgBJ+Uw/jxlTVQHZwKtn3I3tNLr6D1cyrnHB3Y6S6IJdGOQZ0lYs6ruvgdMkR3cEm46Uz9wDr2c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770720274; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kKRt1VDf6faQ+Z3AusG7TiXDalebbQps7t3bNPdqgpk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HN0Zm0j7SmIMeJkQdmiVUjPK/jd49pz4XgHXpfBdBDZtCgP2E4kK/X4G82Pgkc9TljQPzK6v25CvUvBHRFs41ZyrRKt09GuGv/bs2D5BFR32tL/bI8GspdldKjtWvgr1q7lWSrL19H11wT6RhriMuhfR+PufTqYbseF+9cIXM8M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=Ygj+nx5z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="Ygj+nx5z" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=VtWN b7NUdO5bUCDMyQfroR5tgGFvHUsvicqnxM22+PI=; b=Ygj+nx5zicnCg4B/9Jjo ymkrXvds95xu+rHV423jWbmfMbIgr2ZgCTevfkAnWZ8IARilWWLpa4CK/wQVXM5x 4w0A8FpsGIvoAQxpkqhXdmYRN0qT43xKzlQ1ykfgou4qtX6Lg9tcBT3ocv3L+8df n1pLf99ijj7d7hTzrn6bF6m7LtzBNM6u1fdqNKGnt5N+oJAYY99m8k/tzSvDYlQ4 ieOIPOpbfZEiorpZhGkdg4dr/vXBFAROteKjLAN1o94Fw3Oi3TQpMAt45wXG+YrD sAp2VOd6rjRXGob9dobJIE+8tFEqCG9UtOAVzHE/ajBCVdIrcAnKfoW+0CsOnkMh kQ== Received: (qmail 345109 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2026 11:44:25 +0100 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 10 Feb 2026 11:44:25 +0100 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@zQVt8HVKEroujnuT Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:44:25 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Baolin Wang , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Torgue , Andy Shevchenko , Antonio Borneo , Arnd Bergmann , Boqun Feng , Chen-Yu Tsai , Chunyan Zhang , Danilo Krummrich , David Lechner , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Jernej Skrabec , Jonathan Cameron , Jonathan Corbet , Konrad Dybcio , Lee Jones , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, Mark Brown , Maxime Coquelin , Nuno =?utf-8?B?U8Oh?= , Orson Zhai , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Samuel Holland , Shuah Khan , Srinivas Kandagatla , Thomas Gleixner , Waiman Long , Wilken Gottwalt , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] hwspinlock: refactor headers into public provider/consumer pair Message-ID: References: <20260125184654.17843-6-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi Andy, > > 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 I totally agree with you on that. > day 1. Maybe the structure can be split to two? Currently IIO has a I also thought that keeping some internal header might provide that safety. When looking into it, I didn't see an obvious and somewhat elegant way. Even more, I got a better picture of why Bjorn named the current approach "unergonomic". I got some ideas which look doable in my time frame. I will try going the full route, after all. I'll start with some cleanup in some minutes. Happy hacking, Wolfram