[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzF6ggfpyZSMfkIN@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:10:10 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] pwm: lpss: Move exported symbols to PWM_LPSS
namespace
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:55:47AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:43:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 11:59:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:56:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > > +MODULE_IMPORT_NS(PWM_LPSS);
> > >
> > > Each user of the lpss.h header needs that, right? Then the
> > > MODULE_IMPORT_NS statement can go into the header, too.
> >
> > With the same answer as for v1: any user that might include the header for
> > the sake of data types will get the NS inclusion even if they don't need
> > that (yes, I don't think it's practical, but slightly better to make sure
>
> I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. For some headers you
> cannot assume that a file including the header also needs the namespace
> macro, but for pwm-lpss.h that should be a safe assumption.
Yes, it's a safe assumption for _this_ case (as I pointed out above that
there is probably no practical to assume otherwise), in general it may be
not the case.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists