Re: [PATCH] Fix pciehp driver on non ACPI systems

Greg KH
2006-04-12T22:29:24Z

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:14:22PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:57:04AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > #include "../pci.h"
> > >
> > > When one introdues relative apths like the above this is a good sign
> > > that the header file ought to move to a common place somewhere in
> > > include/.
> >
> > No, this is a pci-core only header file. I really don't want to have
> > these in include/linux/pci.h as no one other than the pci core, or pci
> > hotplug drivers need to use it.
>
> But that hold true for other stuff in include/* also.
>
> The guideline is (my understanding):
> - Use .h files only when declarations are shared by more than one .c
> file
> - Put the .h file in same dir as the .c files, iff the .c files are all
> in same dir (and include using #include "file.h")
> - For bigger subsystems create an include/<subsystem> dir for shared .h
> files (and include using #include <file.h>)
> - For smaller subsystems create an include/linux/<subsystem> dir for
> shared .h files (and include using #include <file.h>)
>
> And then we also have:
> - For Greg's pci-core keep the shared .h file with the .c files
> (and include using #include "../file.h")

Ok, sometimes I feel special, but never that "special" :) If you note,
USB also does this for its core files, so there is precidence...

Anyway, is include/linux/pci/pci.h really necessary for just one file?
I guess I could put the msi stuff in there, but again, I really don't
want any driver including it, like they have tried to do so in the
past...

thanks,

greg k-h