Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] pwm: lpss: Include headers we are direct user of

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:22 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > For the sake of integrity, include headers we are direct user of.
> >
> > While at it, move the struct pwm_lpss_chip to be after
> > the struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo as the former uses pointer
> > to the latter.
>
> That part is fine.
>
> > Replace device.h with a forward declaration in order to improve
> > the compilation time due to reducing overhead of device.h parsing
> > with entire train of dependencies.
>
> Together with "For the sake of integrity, include headers we are direct
> user of." this makes an a bit schizophrenic impression on me. You add
> <linux/types.h> because the file is a direct user of it, but you drop
> <linux/device.h> despite being a direct user.

But we don't use device.h.

> If you adapt the reasoning to something like:
>
> Replace the inclusion of <linux/device.h> by a forward declaration of
> struct device plus a (cheaper) #include of <linux/types.h> as
> <linux/device.h> is an expensive include (measured in compiler effort).

Fine with me, thanks for the draft.

> I could better live with it. I would even split this into two patches
> then. (i.e. move struct pwm_lpss_chip vs the include and forward change)

I think for this small change for a driver that hasn't been modified
often it's fine to have them in one. But tell me if you are insisting
on a split, I can do that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko