Re: [PATCH] gpio: drop unnecessary includes from include/linux/gpio/driver.h

From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "Thor Thayer" <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>,
	"Tien Hock Loh" <thloh@altera.com>,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	"Masahiro Yamada" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"Alban Bedel" <albeu@free.fr>,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Alexander Shiyan" <shc_work@mail.ru>,
	"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@kernel.org>,
	"Michal Simek" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
	"Jonathan Hunter" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	"ACPI Devel Maling List" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
	"Sören Brinkmann" <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>,
	"Joel Stanley" <joel@jms.id.au>,
	"Grygorii Strashko" <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	"Ray Jui" <rjui@broadcom.com>,
	"William Breathitt Gray" <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Santosh Shilimkar" <ssantosh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: drop unnecessary includes from include/linux/gpio/driver.h
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 14:04:26 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeLwM8Q5vVLeeGz9hL8AWa2J47NTaeX0ogJk6v7y18diw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZ9q5vub3sQkA2xsQaZ+CGHeAp4RRueposnTPiHoFbSsA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:48 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

>>> > If Linus is okay with the following proposal I would rather go with
>>> > it,
>>> > i.e. logical split the series to
>>> >
>>> > 1. Fix IRQ related headers inclusion
>>> > 2. Fix pinconf-generic.h inclusion
>>> > 3. Fix OF headers inclusion (btw, of_gpio.h is not enough there?)
>>>
>>> That works fine with me, but also one big patch actually, I do not
>>> want to make it too much work to refactor obviously incorrect things.
>>>
>>> As soon as we have rough consensus on this and the build robot
>>> are happy I will apply it to GPIO and also pull it into the pinctrl
>>> subsystem.
>>
>> For me priorities like this:
>> 1) it works after the patch being applied (no regressions);
>> 2) it makes code cleaner at the end;
>> 3) it is presented in logically split parts.
>>
>> So, as long as 1) and 2) are satisfied I can neglect on 3).
>
> We are in violent agreement :D

What I would like to say is that is up to you after all :-)
For me looks better to split.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko