2017-07-04 21:58 GMT+09:00 William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 12:53:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>Some of include directives in include/linux/gpio/driver.h are >>unneeded because the header does not need to know the content of >>struct device, irq_chip, etc. Just declare they are structures. >> >>On the other hand, <linux/irqhandler.h> and <linux/spinlock_types.h> >>turned out to be necessary for irq_flow_handler_t and spinlock_t, >>respectively. >> >>Each driver should include what it needs without relying on what is >>implicitly included from <linux/gpio/driver.h>. This will cut down >>unnecessary header parsing. >> >>Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>--- >> >> drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c | 1 + >> drivers/gpio/gpio-104-idi-48.c | 1 + >> drivers/gpio/gpio-104-idio-16.c | 1 + >> drivers/gpio/gpio-pci-idio-16.c | 2 ++ >> drivers/gpio/gpio-ws16c48.c | 1 + > > The changes to the above drivers look fine to me: > > Acked-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> > > However, this patch as a whole does too many things; I'd like to see it > split-up logically similar to how Andy Shevchenko suggested in his > reply. That should allow ACKs by respective driver maintainers to be > accounted more properly. > > William Breathitt Gray I was missing a very important thing. <linux/gpio/driver.h> is used in various subsystems. I tested only under drivers/gpio/, but drivers/pinctrl/ is one of the biggest source of compile errors. (Probably I will get reports from kbuild test robot.) So, I need to think about how to merge this (if the basic idea of this is OK). Maybe, [1] Send patches to subsystems (gpio, pinctrl, etc.) for v4.14 [2] Drop unneeded includes from linux/gpio/driver.h for v4.15 -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
