Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] pwm: lpss: Include headers we are direct user of

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:53:59AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:22 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > For the sake of integrity, include headers we are direct user of.
> > >
> > > While at it, move the struct pwm_lpss_chip to be after
> > > the struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo as the former uses pointer
> > > to the latter.
> >
> > That part is fine.
> >
> > > Replace device.h with a forward declaration in order to improve
> > > the compilation time due to reducing overhead of device.h parsing
> > > with entire train of dependencies.
> >
> > Together with "For the sake of integrity, include headers we are direct
> > user of." this makes an a bit schizophrenic impression on me. You add
> > <linux/types.h> because the file is a direct user of it, but you drop
> > <linux/device.h> despite being a direct user.
> 
> But we don't use device.h.

What is the canonical header to provide struct device?

> > If you adapt the reasoning to something like:
> >
> > Replace the inclusion of <linux/device.h> by a forward declaration of
> > struct device plus a (cheaper) #include of <linux/types.h> as
> > <linux/device.h> is an expensive include (measured in compiler effort).
> 
> Fine with me, thanks for the draft.
> 
> > I could better live with it. I would even split this into two patches
> > then. (i.e. move struct pwm_lpss_chip vs the include and forward change)
> 
> I think for this small change for a driver that hasn't been modified
> often it's fine to have them in one. But tell me if you are insisting
> on a split, I can do that.

I don't insist.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature