On 9/24/18 1:13 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:41:44AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> There is no need to match device with the DT node since it was already >> matched, use of_device_get_match_data() helper to get the match-data. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c | 10 ++-------- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >> index 5454ffe5b2e0..cdc33f93cf7c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c >> @@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> -#include <linux/of.h> >> -#include <linux/platform_device.h> > > It's better not to remove these two because the code still uses > functions declared in them. If ever we were going to remove code using > linux/of_device.h and then remove the linux/of_device.h include, we'd > break the build and have to reintroduce the includes. That doesn't sound like a good argument. You're way too picky here ;) > The same would happen if linux/of_device.h were ever to stop including > linux/platform_device.h or linux/of.h. That may sound unlikely, but it > has happened in the past with other includes. It can also happen that > some restructuring takes place in some headers that is not so obvious > and then things can still start falling apart miles away. Restructuring will be somebody else problem. Not sure that we really should care about it, I think it is unnecessary. But since you're insisting..
