On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 01:19:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 10:59:41AM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote: > > On 2025/4/1 00:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > + * The respective API headers should > > > + * guarantee all the required data types and definitions without including > > > + * this header directly into the driver. > > > > device property(include/linux/property.h) > > ^ > > | > > firmware node(include/linux/fwnode.h) > > ^ ^ ^ ^ > > | | | | > > DT ACPI SWNODE ... > > > > For various firmware implementations(DT|ACPI|SWNODE...), i feel we may > > allow them include fwnode.h by their header or source files. > > That's the point, yes. And that's what exactly I put under the first sentence. > The device property providers are not the leaf drivers in this sense. FWIW, Rafael proposed better wording which I'm going to use in v3 in the header. Commit message would be similar, though. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
