On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:21:47PM -0800, Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 3:03 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 04:44:53PM -0800, Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h > > > index bec920fa6b8a..94b373378f63 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > > #ifndef __DRIVER_USB_TYPEC_UCSI_H > > > #define __DRIVER_USB_TYPEC_UCSI_H > > > > > > +#include <asm-generic/unaligned.h> > > > > Do you really need to include a asm/ include file? This feels very > > wrong. > > I didn't see any header in include/linux that already had these > unaligned access functions so I opted to include > asm-generic/unaligned.h. Is there a reason not to use an asm/ include > file? Yes, you should never need to include a asm/ file, unless you are arch-specific code. But the big issue is that you don't really need this, right? > > It's also in the wrong place, AND why "asm-generic"? That also feels > > wrong. > > asm-generic is definitely wrong; I misunderstood how these headers are > supposed to be used (should be just asm/unaligned.h). Why? What are you requiring this .h file for? > For ordering, I took a look at some other files and it looks like > <asm/...> goes below the <linux/...> includes. This also probably > deserves documenting in the style guide. It is somewhere, checkpatch should complain about it. thanks, greg k-h
