Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] pwm: lpss: Allow other drivers to enable PWM LPSS

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:23:17AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:58:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:28 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The PWM LPSS device can be embedded in another device.
> > > > In order to enable it, allow that drivers to probe
> > > > a corresponding device.

...

> > > Now that pwm_lpss_boardinfo lives in a different file, this makes the
> > > move of pwm_lpss_chip in patch 3 somewhat redundant.
> > 
> > But they are independent changes. At each stage (after each patch) we
> > should have a finished step, right? Not touching that makes me feel
> > that the step is half-baked. If you insist I can drop that move from
> > the other patch.
> 
> Given that the move is something you do just en passant in the earlier
> patch , I consider my suggestion cleaner. I'd call that 0.5 * insist.

I have looked again and I have noticed that in the current state we have

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

	struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo {
		...
	};

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;


In the proposed change (with move included) it becomes

	#include <...>

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

and without

	#include <...>

	sturct pwm_lpss_chip {
		...
	};

	extern struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo ...;

And I consider that my way is slightly better in terms of ordering.
That said, I will leave it as is for v3. We may continue discussing
it further there.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko