On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:42:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Include these headers explicitly to avoid the build failure. > > I don't think you need to include *both*. > > <linux/device.h> used to include just <linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h>. > > I'll edit your patches to include just that. > <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> will come in automatically through it. I was trying to avoid any implicit inclusion, but looking at pinctrl/devinfo.h it has a comment right above the pinctrl/consumer.h include that makes it clear that pinctrl/devinfo.h is the consumer of pinctrl for the core, so I guess the implicit include is fine here. I do question, though, if drivers have any business including this pinctrl/devinfo.h in the first place. For the Mediatek ethernet it seems like selecting the default state is redundant (the core should already have taken care of that, and the driver never selects a different state anywhere). The same is true of drm/rockchip, which also only seems to select a state which the pinctrl core should've selected by default already. See arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288.dtsi which sets up the "lcdc" state as the only state for the LVDS output. Anyway, I think going with the pinctrl/devinfo.h include only is fine for now. If it turns out that the Mediatek ethernet and Rockchip LVDS drivers can just omit the bits fiddling with struct dev_pin_info, we can swap out the pinctrl/devinfo.h include for pinctrl/consumer.h at that time. LinusW: what are your thoughts on the struct dev_pin_info usage by these drivers? Does their code seem redundant to you, too? Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
