Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: char: Remove useless includes
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
CC:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>
References: <20210429080639.6379-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
 <20210503174238.GD1699665@xps15>
 <b2f6b9ca-9dc2-920b-941d-175779bc1034@foss.st.com>
 <20210504170530.GD1734971@xps15>
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Message-ID: <7170fdd0-00cd-1486-7b4c-41040ecfff6f@foss.st.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 20:20:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210504170530.GD1734971@xps15>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 5/4/21 7:05 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Hi Arnaud,
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> I started by this one and then I got carried away tested the other include...
>> You are right, I just don't follow her the first rule of the "submit checklist"
>>
>> "If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares that
>> facility. Don’t depend on other header files pulling in ones that you use."
>>
>> That said I just have a doubt for uapi/linux/rpmsg.h that will be include
>> by rpmsg.h[2], as these includes are part of the rpmsg framework API, should we
>> keep both, considering the rule as strict?
> 
> I red the last paragraph several times I can't understand what you are
> trying to convey.  Please rephrase, provide more context or detail exactly where
> you think we have a problem.

There is no problem, just a question before sending an update.

As you mention the #include "rpmsg_internal.h" line can be removed, I plan to
send a patch V2 for this.

That's said before sending a new version I would like to propose to also remove
the #include  <uapi/linux/rpmsg.h> line.

The rational to remove it is that include/rpmsg.h would already include
<uapi/linux/rpmsg.h> in 5.13 [2]. And looking at some frameworks (e.g I2C, TTY)
the drivers seem to include only the include/xxx.h and not the uapi/linux/xxx.h
in such case.

So my question is should I remove  #include  <uapi/linux/rpmsg.h> line? Or do
you prefer that i keep it?

Hope it is more clear... else please just forget my proposal, I wouldn't want
you to waste too much time for a point of detail.

Thanks,
Arnaud

> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
> 
>>
>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submit-checklist.html
>> [2]
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20210311140413.31725-3-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>>>  
>>>>  #define RPMSG_DEV_MAX	(MINORMASK + 1)
>>>>  
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>