On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:48 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 12:53 +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. >> > >> > If Linus is okay with the following proposal I would rather go with >> > it, >> > i.e. logical split the series to >> > >> > 1. Fix IRQ related headers inclusion >> > 2. Fix pinconf-generic.h inclusion >> > 3. Fix OF headers inclusion (btw, of_gpio.h is not enough there?) >> >> That works fine with me, but also one big patch actually, I do not >> want to make it too much work to refactor obviously incorrect things. >> >> As soon as we have rough consensus on this and the build robot >> are happy I will apply it to GPIO and also pull it into the pinctrl >> subsystem. > > For me priorities like this: > 1) it works after the patch being applied (no regressions); > 2) it makes code cleaner at the end; > 3) it is presented in logically split parts. > > So, as long as 1) and 2) are satisfied I can neglect on 3). We are in violent agreement :D Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
