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;
Date:   Wed, 5 May 2021 11:08:04 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To:     Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: char: Remove useless includes
Message-ID: <20210505170804.GC1766375@xps15>
References: <20210429080639.6379-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
 <20210503174238.GD1699665@xps15>
 <b2f6b9ca-9dc2-920b-941d-175779bc1034@foss.st.com>
 <20210504170530.GD1734971@xps15>
 <7170fdd0-00cd-1486-7b4c-41040ecfff6f@foss.st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7170fdd0-00cd-1486-7b4c-41040ecfff6f@foss.st.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 08:20:25PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

Thanks for the clarifications, this is much much better.

Less changes is always preferred, so unless there is a clear guideline or a good
reason to make a change I would prefer to keep things the way they are.

> 
> 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
> >>>>