On 9/25/18 1:00 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:39:43PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> On 9/24/18 1:13 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:41:44AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> There is no need to match device with the DT node since it was already >>>> matched, use of_device_get_match_data() helper to get the match-data. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c | 10 ++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >>>> index 5454ffe5b2e0..cdc33f93cf7c 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >>>> @@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ >>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >>>> #include <linux/kernel.h> >>>> #include <linux/module.h> >>>> -#include <linux/of.h> >>>> -#include <linux/platform_device.h> >>> >>> It's better not to remove these two because the code still uses >>> functions declared in them. If ever we were going to remove code using >>> linux/of_device.h and then remove the linux/of_device.h include, we'd >>> break the build and have to reintroduce the includes. >> >> That doesn't sound like a good argument. You're way too picky here ;) >> >>> The same would happen if linux/of_device.h were ever to stop including >>> linux/platform_device.h or linux/of.h. That may sound unlikely, but it >>> has happened in the past with other includes. It can also happen that >>> some restructuring takes place in some headers that is not so obvious >>> and then things can still start falling apart miles away. >> >> Restructuring will be somebody else problem. Not sure that we really >> should care about it, I think it is unnecessary. But since you're >> insisting.. > > It's actually a very common argument and I've seen patches in the past > that add includes just for the purpose of making sure the right > definitions get pulled in. This happens quite frequently as a preamble > to some major rework of some header files that would otherwise cause a > lot of breakage. > > So I think it's best to be proactive about this and make sure we > explicitly pull in all the necessary headers in the first place, > irrespective of whether or not they may already get pulled in indirectly > by some other headers. Ok
