Re: [PATCH 05/21] spi: s3c64xx: explicitly include <linux/bits.h>

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:34:04PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:

> > +#include <linux/bits.h>

> I don't see why this should be included. Are there cases when
> not having bits.h produces any compilation error?

It is good practice to directly include all headers used, it avoids
implicit dependencies and spurious breakage if someone rearranges
headers and causes the implicit include to vanish.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature