On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > Am Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:51:03 +0200 > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:24:13PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > > > In order to clearly describe the dependencies between the gpio ... > > > +#ifndef __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO > > > +#define __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO > > > > > +#endif /* __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO */ > > > > This header doesn't look right. > > > > Have you run `make W=1 ...` against your patches? > > No reports. > > > Even if it doesn't show defined but unused errors > > the idea is that this should be a C-file, called, > > let's say, ...-core.c. > > When i started i kind of had a -common.c in mind as well. But then the > header idea came and i gave it a try, expecting questions in the review. > > It might be a bit unconventional but it seems to do the trick pretty > well. Do you see a concrete problem or a violation of a rule? Exactly as described above. The header approach means that *all* static definitions must be used by each user of that file. Otherwise you will get "defined but not used" compiler warning. And approach itself is considered (at least by me) as a hackish way to achieve what usually should be done via C-file. So, if maintainers are okay, I wouldn't have objections, but again I do not think it's a correct approach. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
