Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 24 Sep 2022 12:04:53 +0200
From:   Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] pwm: lpss: Include headers we are direct user of
Message-ID: <20220924100453.hupbeotwqrehc4yq@pengutronix.de>
References: <20220908135658.64463-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20220908135658.64463-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="47jfuq66hwnevjmr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220908135658.64463-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk


--47jfuq66hwnevjmr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:56:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> For the sake of integrity, include headers we are direct user of.
>=20
> While at it, replace device.h with a forward declaration and add
> missed struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo one.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h
> index c344921b2cab..839622964b2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.h
> @@ -10,11 +10,15 @@
>  #ifndef __PWM_LPSS_H
>  #define __PWM_LPSS_H
> =20
> -#include <linux/device.h>
>  #include <linux/pwm.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> =20
>  #define MAX_PWMS			4
> =20
> +struct device;

It's not clear to me how this is an improvment. Isn't it saner to
include <linux/device.h>?

> +struct pwm_lpss_boardinfo;

Why is this necessary? The struct is defined a few lines below the
context of this patch and I see no user that would benefit.

Best regards
Uwe

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

--47jfuq66hwnevjmr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEfnIqFpAYrP8+dKQLwfwUeK3K7AkFAmMu1kIACgkQwfwUeK3K
7AlamAf/da0g9V09MPj9pr+Fcj7wdKmqtsIvWW9rz3g6glVS6HNpATjwsxoTkaIk
14hu1Q9C9zO7YAnXz+ou50XL93JcyAOGTzyWlAznfulQ3XaYy3O3UpLrwSvirOYb
Jk82fsNn9gysglXm2cXGMzgfGcU/6+FJq4oz77nsnLTEWYx4ZAPM5Pofr0szOJ3A
D6E+vVM3Z5FYEjSGARZEQKoX9ERpzjfZosuk8Pllb95lJEJH2ifPZSDes4cLoi0o
ZyVz8tNohs5yquWTOcekWbAY58mz5tjLQmgxE6W20qm5GhwegVrAMmaH610KIxni
zU2jXJB175e32ZxxTPtFvZXBlmpQpw==
=tZGf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--47jfuq66hwnevjmr--