Quoting Simona Vetter (2025-01-22 08:11:53-03:00) >On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 06:09:25PM -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote: >> The header drm_print.h uses members of struct drm_device pointers, as >> such, it should include drm_device.h to let the compiler know the full >> type definition. >> >> Without such include, users of drm_print.h that don't explicitly need >> drm_device.h would bump into build errors and be forced to include the >> latter. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> include/drm/drm_print.h | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_print.h b/include/drm/drm_print.h >> index f77fe1531cf8..9732f514566d 100644 >> --- a/include/drm/drm_print.h >> +++ b/include/drm/drm_print.h >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ >> #include <linux/dynamic_debug.h> >> >> #include <drm/drm.h> >> +#include <drm/drm_device.h> > >We much prefer just a struct device forward decl to avoid monster headers. >Is that not doable here? I don't think so. This header explicitly uses members of struct drm_device, so the compiler needs to know the full type definition. As an example see the definition of drm_WARN(), it uses (drm)->dev. -- Gustavo Sousa > Worst case I'd convert the drm_info_printer() >static inline to a macro, not sure about the exact rules here if you >never deref a pointer. >-Sima > >> >> struct debugfs_regset32; >> struct drm_device; >> -- >> 2.48.1 >> > >-- >Simona Vetter >Software Engineer, Intel Corporation >http://blog.ffwll.ch
