From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751231AbeAVXVm (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:21:42 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:33646 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049AbeAVXVl (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:21:41 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226QChQvCfkR97c04TIToHN4I/pMMH2Ogmd4DlZS9Dwinym/JMTeUQdzlpWmuisu5Rz5g7sepw== Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:21:37 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Ladislav Michl Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Wei Yongjun , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] devres: Move managed io function declarations into device.h Message-ID: <20180122232137.hdalkbpczjqfyyax@dtor-ws> References: <20180121211432.GA15151@lenoch> <20180121211508.GB15151@lenoch> <20180122174903.z5ijxouq5bw2s36r@dtor-ws> <20180122215056.GA27905@lenoch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180122215056.GA27905@lenoch> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:50:57PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:49:03AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:15:08PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > > > Moving managed io function declarations into device.h allows > > > removing forward struct device and resource definitions from > > > io(port).h > > > > In the face of it, what is the issue with forward declarations of device > > and resource structures? device.h is supposed to be about Linux device > > model, not hardware. You would not want all devm_* functions to go into > > device.h (clock, regulator, input, rtc, hwmon, etc, etc devm API), > > right? Why would we want ioport there? > > Allright, point taken. Then I would assume devm_ioremap_resource should > be moved from device.h into io.h, to get some consistency, right? Yes, I think that would be good. > Any other comment (mainly to devm_ioremap_shared_resource) before v2? > > Thank you, > ladis Thanks. -- Dmitry