Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:49:12 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] mfd: intel-lpss: Move linux/pm.h to the local header |
| |
On Fri, 08 Feb 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 03:08:17PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:50 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > We now using a common macro for PM operations in Intel LPSS driver, > > > > > and, since that macro relies on the definition and macro from linux/pm.h > > > > > header file, it's logical to include it directly in intel-lpss.h. > > > > > Otherwise it's a bit fragile and requires a proper ordering > > > > > of header inclusion in C files. > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this. File which use various headers should > > > > explicitly include them. Inheriting header files is non-optimal. > > > > > > > > > > intel-lpss.h _is_ using pm.h. > > > I don't see a contradiction here. > > > > Then it should be including in there *also*. > > Why? > > intel-lpss-*.c are not direct users of this header.
They're not? That's is where the miscommunication lies then.
If a C-file isn't using the offerings of a headerfile, obviously there is no need for the C-file to include it.
> > My point is that if drivers/mfd/intel-lpss-{acpi,pci}.c use the header > > file, it should include it explicitly. > > They are using it indirectly.
Indirectly is fine.
> As far as I know we don't, for example, include "asm/*.h" to each of our C-file > because they are in _indirect_ use of.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |