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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221108142226.63161-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20221108142226.63161-4-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20221110072144.2s37r52qcpi6utgh@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20221110072144.2s37r52qcpi6utgh@pengutronix.de>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VenLc-QfuD3rHPh=5nu_SqWvEnsePbNMsBA4R-Zs+nvrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] pwm: lpss: Include headers we are direct user of
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:22 AM Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> 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.

> 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.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko