On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:53:59AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. What is the canonical header to provide struct device? > > 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. I don't insist. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
