Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] spi: Switch to using is_acpi_device_node() in spi_dev_set_name()

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 7:56 PM Charles Keepax
<ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 04:30:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:06 PM Charles Keepax
> > <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Use the more modern is_acpi_device_node() rather than checking
> > > ACPI_COMPANION().
> >
> > I don't think it's valuable on its own. There is no clear motivation
> > why to do that, I suggested it exactly in the conjunction of not
> > introducing two ways of fwnode type check. That said, you probably
> > want to elaborate the motivation in the commit message if you want to
> > keep it separate.
>
> I am really tempted to just drop this, its not necessary for my
> changes and changes something that is unrelated to them. At the
> least it belongs in a separate patch.

Okay, just elaborate in the commit message that this is done to make
new comer not to invent its own way for fwnode type check,

...

> > > +#include <linux/fwnode.h>
> >
> > This header is not supposed to be included by the end users. property.h is.
>
> Fair enough will update, although I really feel these headers
> could use some annotation if they are not supposed to be directly
> included. Either include everything you use or just include a top
> level header makes sense but this weird mixture we seem to use is
> very confusing and I don't have a big enough brain to remember
> every header.

Rough hint is to look into the contents. But I agree, that is a complete mess.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko