On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anyway, I think going with the pinctrl/devinfo.h include only is fine > for now. If it turns out that the Mediatek ethernet and Rockchip LVDS > drivers can just omit the bits fiddling with struct dev_pin_info, we can > swap out the pinctrl/devinfo.h include for pinctrl/consumer.h at that > time. > > LinusW: what are your thoughts on the struct dev_pin_info usage by these > drivers? Does their code seem redundant to you, too? I don't think they should use struct dev_pin_info at all, that thing is for the device core only. I like to think that <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> is for drivers that explicitly grab and control pin control states so this driver should only include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>. Torvalds: can you do it like that instead? Either way will make the compile work again, we can also tidy it up later. (i.e. I will grep for includes of pinctrl/dev_info.h and replace it with consumer.h) at some point. It wasn't pretty that these drivers were relying on implicit #includes in the first place so either is anyway prettier than what it used to look like. In a way I kind of like this sideffect even if it broke some compiles. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
