On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 11:14 AM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:02:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:30 PM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > +#include <linux/array_size.h>
> > > +#include <linux/bits.h>
> > > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > > +#include <linux/math.h>
> > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >
> > > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> >
> > + types.h
>
> This one is already pulled in indirectly and I'm not going to respin for
> this.
>
> > + asm/byteorder.h
>
> Already explicitly included in the code you left out.
Is there any guarantee it will be like this? I don't think so. That's
why there is an IWYU principle to give more flexibility of reshuffling
the (core) headers. And I believe you know that we have way too far
dependency hell in the headers in the kernel. Have you seen what Ingo
tried to do and what the potential achievements are?
...
> > > + rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, desc, &config);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
> > > + ret = PTR_ERR(rdev);
> > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to register regulator %s: %d\n",
> > > + desc->name, ret);
> > > + return ret;
> >
> > It's possible to use
> >
> > return dev_err_probe(...);
> >
> > even for non-probe functions.
(this should be "non-probe deferred functions")
> This is a probe function(), but as I've told you repeatedly I'm not
> going to use dev_err_probe() here.
Yeah, I got it, some developers are leaving in the previous decades to
make code very verbose for no benefit, no problem.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
