Morning Stephen,
On 3/20/23 21:23, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2023-03-18 23:36:20)
I think you would have an easier time if you just copied and renamed
them into the kunit folder as an preparation series.
Yes. That would simplify the syncing between the trees. It slightly bugs
me to add dublicate code in kernel-but the clean-up series for DRM users
could be prepared at the same time. It would be even possible to just
change the drm-helper to be a wrapper for the generic one - and leave
the callers intact - although it leaves some seemingly unnecessary
"onion code" there.
That way, you wouldn't have to coordinate DRM, CCF and IIO, you'd just
create new helpers that can be reused/converted to by everyone eventually
Yes. Thanks - I think I may go with this approach for the v5 :)
Which kunit directory?
I was thinking of adding the platform_device.h (I liked your suggestion)
in the include/kunit/
I imagine if there are conflicts they will be
trivial so it probably doesn't matter.
Probably so. Still, I am not the one who needs to deal with the
conflicts. Hence I like at least asking if people see good way to avoid
them in the first place.
Besides, I was not sure if you were planning to add similar helper or
just wrappers to individual functions. Wanted to ping you just in case
this has some impact to what you do.
Have you Cced kunit folks and the
list on the kunit patches? They may have some opinion.
This patch was should have contained the
include/kunit/platform_device.h. That file was pulling the Kunit people
in recipients but I messed up things with last minute changes so both
the header and people were dropped. I'll fix this for v5.
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
