On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:19 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > Am 02.05.23 um 21:54 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> >> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:02:21PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> #include <linux/console.h> /* Why should fb driver call console functions? because console_lock() */
> >>> #include <video/vga.h>
> >>>
> >>> +#include <asm/fb.h>
> >>
> >> When we have a header like linux/fb.h - it is my understanding that it is
> >> preferred to include that file, and not the asm/fb.h variant.
> >>
> >> This is assuming the linux/fb.h contains the generic stuff, and includes
> >> asm/fb.h for the architecture specific parts.
> >>
> >> So drivers will include linux/fb.h and then they automatically get the
> >> architecture specific parts from asm/fb.h.
> >>
> >> In other words, drivers are not supposed to include asm/fb.h, if
> >> linux.fb.h exists - and linux/fb.h shall include the asm/fb.h.
> >>
> >> If the above holds true, then it is wrong and not needed to add asm/fb.h
> >> as seen above.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are countless examples where the above are not followed,
> >> but to my best understanding the above it the preferred way to do it.
> >
> > Where did youher this? I only know about this in the case of asm/io.h
> > vs. linux/io.h.
> >
>
> I understand that's the case too. I believe even checkpatch.pl complains
> about it? (not that the script always get right, but just as an example).
One more to chime in: in general, drivers should only include <linux/foo.h>.
Including <asm/foo.h> directly is the exception.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
