On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:48 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 12:53 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Some of include directives in include/linux/gpio/driver.h are > > > unneeded because the header does not need to know the content of > > > struct device, irq_chip, etc. Just declare they are structures. > > > > > > On the other hand, <linux/irqhandler.h> and > > > <linux/spinlock_types.h> > > > turned out to be necessary for irq_flow_handler_t and spinlock_t, > > > respectively. > > > > > > Each driver should include what it needs without relying on what > > > is > > > implicitly included from <linux/gpio/driver.h>. This will cut > > > down > > > unnecessary header parsing. > > > > If Linus is okay with the following proposal I would rather go with > > it, > > i.e. logical split the series to > > > > 1. Fix IRQ related headers inclusion > > 2. Fix pinconf-generic.h inclusion > > 3. Fix OF headers inclusion (btw, of_gpio.h is not enough there?) > > That works fine with me, but also one big patch actually, I do not > want to make it too much work to refactor obviously incorrect things. > > As soon as we have rough consensus on this and the build robot > are happy I will apply it to GPIO and also pull it into the pinctrl > subsystem. For me priorities like this: 1) it works after the patch being applied (no regressions); 2) it makes code cleaner at the end; 3) it is presented in logically split parts. So, as long as 1) and 2) are satisfied I can neglect on 3). -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
