Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:14:12 -0700 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 04/14] drivers: irqchip: add PDC irqdomain for wakeup capable GPIOs |
| |
On Fri, Nov 08 2019 at 15:57 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >Hi, > >On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:16 PM Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 08 2019 at 14:54 -0700, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >On Fri, Nov 08 2019 at 14:22 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >> >> >>On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:00 PM Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/irq.h b/include/linux/soc/qcom/irq.h >> >>>new file mode 100644 >> >>>index 0000000..85ac4b6 >> >>>--- /dev/null >> >>>+++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/irq.h >> >>>@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ >> >>>+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >> >>>+ >> >>>+#ifndef __QCOM_IRQ_H >> >>>+#define __QCOM_IRQ_H >> >>>+ >> >> >> >>I happened to be looking at a pile of patches and one of them added: >> >> >> >>+#include <linux/irqdomain.h> >> >> >> >>...right here. If/when you spin your patch, maybe you should too? At >> >>the moment the patch I was looking at is at: >> >> >> >>https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+log/refs/heads/android-mainline-tracking >> >> >> >>Specifically: >> >> >> >>https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/448e2302f82a70f52475b6fc32bbe30301052e6b >> >> >> >> >> >Sure, will take care of it in the next spin. >> > >> Checking for this, it seems like it would not be needed by this header. >> There is nothing in this file that would need that header. It was >> probably a older version that pulled into that tree. >> >> Is there a reason now that you see this need? > >From the note in the commit I found I'd assume that Maulik Shah (who >is CCed here) has history? > >...but looking at it, I see that your header file refers to >"IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_NONCORE" which is defined in "linux/irqdomain.h". Ah, ok. That would need the file. Will add.
>That means it's good hygiene for you to include the header, right? >Otherwise all your users need to know that they should include the >header themselves, which is a bit ugly. > >-Doug
| |