[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1486949370.3661.5.camel@aj.id.au>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:59:30 +1030
From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, eajames <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, corbet@....net,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"Edward A. James" <eajames@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux v7 6/6] hwmon: occ: Add callbacks for parsing P9
OCC datastructures
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 16:01 +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > +
> > +#ifndef __OCC_P9_H__
> > +#define __OCC_P9_H__
> > +
> > +#include "scom.h"
> > +
> > +struct device;
>
> Include the header for struct device instead.
>
> Did you consider the one header file for all of your shared functions?
> I don't think there's much value in having a whole heap of small ones.
My bias is against monolithic headers. While it would be no
linux/sched.h[1] so the impact won't be great, I prefer keeping headers
to only describing the abstract data type at hand. A collection of
small, relevant headers makes it easier for me to understand the
abstraction boundaries.
Andrew
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/713712/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists