Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: use the required minimum set of headers

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:17:50PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 5:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 01:30:01PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for taking my suggestion into account!
> >
> > > Andy suggested we should keep a fine-grained scheme for includes and
> > > only pull in stuff required within individual ifdef sections. Let's
> > > revert commit dea69f2d1cc8 ("gpiolib: move all includes to the top of
> > > gpio/consumer.h") and make the headers situation even more fine-grained
> > > by only including the first level headers containing requireded symbols
> > > except for bug.h where checkpatch.pl warns against including asm/bug.h.
> >
> > I'm not sure we should consider the checkpatch.pl in this case.

...

> > This change is definitely an improvement from the current state in your
> > gpio/for-next branch, if you are really strong about linux/bug.h, let me more
> > time to check that header and see if there any potential issues.
> 
> Sure, take your time. For some reason checkpatch does recommend using
> linux/foo.h over asm/foo.h if the former includes the latter but I
> don't know the history of this.

I know the history of this, lately (last year) it was again a discussion result
of which is linux/unaligned.h. But this recommendation is only for the leaf files
or custom (local) headers and code, it doesn't fully applicable to the globally
accessed headers, like gpio/consumer.h. I consider this as false positive by
checkpatch.

Yes, I will check more on the header nevertheless.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko