Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-05-17 16:27:26) > > > On 5/16/19 3:42 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-05-16 23:10:10) > >> Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-05-16 23:07:43) > >>> Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-05-16 22:56:31) > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.h > >>>> index b964ca7af9c8..0e3817f9785e 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.h > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.h > >>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > >>>> #ifndef __INTEL_RUNTIME_PM_H__ > >>>> #define __INTEL_RUNTIME_PM_H__ > >>>> > >>>> +#include <linux/device.h> > >>> > >>> There doesn't seem to be any peeking into struct device, so do we not > >>> just need the struct device forward decl here? > > True, will fix. > > >> > >> And add it to Makefile.headers_test > > > > Hint: we may need to split out intel_display_power.[ch] > > > > Should I add intel_display_power.h to Makefile.headers_test as well? It > does compile on its own, but it'll have to include intel_display.h, > which isn't on the list. Yes. If we have to include intel_display.h, that means whenever we get around to splitting intel_display.h, we will remember to update intel_display_power.h. Rainy day tasks will be to delete #include at random and see which are still required in headers. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
