On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:02:40PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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? > > I don't think they should use struct dev_pin_info at all, > that thing is for the device core only. > > I like to think that <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> is for drivers that > explicitly grab and control pin control states so this driver should > only include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>. > > Torvalds: can you do it like that instead? Either way will > make the compile work again, we can also tidy it up later. > (i.e. I will grep for includes of pinctrl/dev_info.h and replace > it with consumer.h) at some point. That won't work, unfortunately, because these drivers actually try to dereference pointers to struct dev_pin_info and hence need that include for the structure's definition. Those are the only two drivers I can see that access this structure directly (other than the device core). Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
