Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes: Hello Thomas, > Am 02.05.23 um 21:54 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: >> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 03:02:21PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: [...] >>> #include <linux/console.h> /* Why should fb driver call console functions? because console_lock() */ >>> #include <video/vga.h> >>> >>> +#include <asm/fb.h> >> >> When we have a header like linux/fb.h - it is my understanding that it is >> preferred to include that file, and not the asm/fb.h variant. >> >> This is assuming the linux/fb.h contains the generic stuff, and includes >> asm/fb.h for the architecture specific parts. >> >> So drivers will include linux/fb.h and then they automatically get the >> architecture specific parts from asm/fb.h. >> >> In other words, drivers are not supposed to include asm/fb.h, if >> linux.fb.h exists - and linux/fb.h shall include the asm/fb.h. >> >> If the above holds true, then it is wrong and not needed to add asm/fb.h >> as seen above. >> >> >> There are countless examples where the above are not followed, >> but to my best understanding the above it the preferred way to do it. > > Where did youher this? I only know about this in the case of asm/io.h > vs. linux/io.h. > I understand that's the case too. I believe even checkpatch.pl complains about it? (not that the script always get right, but just as an example). -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
